User talk:PalestineRemembered/Archives/2007/October

Archive1, Archive2, Archive3

Re:Starting articles

Hi, PalestineRemembered, I don't want to sound simple but, I apologize I don't know exactly what you're trying to say. Are you criticizing the al-Walaja article, other town article stubs I created or both. Also who is us? Wiki:Project Palestine? If it is this project I have certainly invited other wikipedia editors to expand and look over the articles I started.[1] -- Al Ameer son 02:17, 7 July 2007

Oh ok, I understand now, thanks I am going to try to make a NameSpace if you can give me the wikipedia directions on how to make one. So if I don't have one, other editors can't add to the article or is it sort of like don't finalize on it until it is approved right? -- Al Ameer son 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much I will do this for now on. -- Al Ameer son 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have created a user page for Huj, (User:Al Ameer son/Huj).I used (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Gaza/Huj/index.html) as my source. -- Al Ameer son 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A request from a new member

hi, how are you. A request from a new member. I did my best to clean up and to enrich the article Zionism and racism allegations, but I am still a new wikipedian and my English language is not as good as what it should be. I think I still need some help. I hope you will participate in developing that page.

Please be sure to see my edits in the article since I fear that they will be reverted quicly. --Aaronshavit 21:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your complaint

Actually, as I explained to you quite clearly at the time, "Actually, it pointed to an article in the Economist. There's no requirement that specific quotes from the citation be provided, beyond what is listed in the article itself. Nevertheless, I have provided one anyway." And that is exactly the case; the reference was always perfectly good, pointing to an article called "Country cousins" in the Economist, and giving the exact date of publication, April 8, 2000. "Country Cousins", The Economist, April 8, 2000. is a fine reference, fully complaint with all Wikipedia requirements, and that's what it said. There's no requirement that a lengthy quote from the article be provided, and most citations on Wikipedia don't bother doing so. As a courtesy to you I actually went and got that quotation anyway. To have you now claim that this courtesy was somehow deceptive is strange at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made a (nearly) unreserved apology to you at the ArbCom page - but I'm posting the chain of events to your TalkPage (and here) in order to avoid cluttering up that page.

I first made a mild complaint at[2], whereupon you made the fix, and messaged me that you'd done so[3] (I'm almost uninvolved and not taking part in the edit of that article, hence I don't think I saw your note). Meanwhile, I'd complained more vociferously at[4] and your response this time came across to me as denial and as an accusation of bungling against me. I trust you will similarly withdraw any false allegations you have outstanding against me. PalestineRemembered 14:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What "false allegations" do I have against you? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the quid pro quo setup you've arranged; you make a false accusation about me, then retract it, but demand something in return. Neat. Well, it seems likely now that you didn't get that material from a Holocaust denial site. Now, please don't post political screeds on my Talk: page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not arranged anything - the message I saw from you (the second one) looks like denial and bluster. In fact, it is denial and bluster. There was another message from you (the first one), which was grudging acceptance and an admission that you'd much improved your reference. We are keen on proper references, now aren't we? PalestineRemembered 19:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jenin / Kurdi Bear

Responded on my talk. Eleland 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

no alternative

obviously, you did not take a good look into the matter and i'm notifying you that you are wrong with your estimation/claim on that issue, as you were with most other, if not all, claims made about me. now, since you are insisting on claiming things about me or in my name with every new comment of yours - including this one from 08:33, 7 August 2007 - even after all my notes, requests^[5], and warnings^[6], i see no alternative but to report this behavior. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi PalestineRemembered. I noticed a WP:ANI report on all this at

• WP:ANI#Repeated bogus accusations/claims and libel - User: PalestineRemembered.

I thought I should give you a direct link since it wasn't clear in Jaakobou's comment what he was talking about. I am not taking sides in this. I haven't studied the issues. I am just letting you know of the WP:ANI discussion about you. --Timeshifter 11:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Thank you.

your explanation^[7] that you contest the existence or lack of existence of the word "attack", does not explain your recent revert^[8] in which you've not only removed new and well cited material (such as the camp being a densely populated urban battlefield, and bulldozers being utilized after 13 soldiers died), but also destroyed a number of fixes to the references (such as the TIME, The Observer, JCSS, and the MFA). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits in Mainspace are nearly as bad as your contributions to other people's TalkPages (for which you've previously been banned, at least according to two admins on 14th April). If there was anything worthwhile in your edits then I'd be astonished. PalestineRemembered 21:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

if you're thinking that repeating your misunerstanding of a conflict you were not a part of and accusing me of something false (afer you've been noted about this repeatedly), will make your revert justified then your logic confuses me. i'm even more confused considering you just lost your assigned mentor who was found to be a sock puppet. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, Isarig, if i'm not mistaken, has only (and quite justifiably) removed the "source needs to be validated" tags on battle of jenin. his edits might be inline with eleland's edits, but to be frank, they are not close to your combative approach to the article and i find your implication that you are "astounded that i say i'm trying to promote the article"^[9] uncivil to say the least considering my efforts and your recent contributions on said article and talk. to be frank, i'm starting to lose my patience with how you've not even tried to develop your style since you've been nominated for a possible community ban (link), or changed it much since your one month block in 2006 even (link). what more needs to be done to emphasize to you that wikipedia is not a battleground for fighting for your own POV or for insulting other editors? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou you've been blocked before for just this kind of outrageous harrassment of people on their TalkPages. PalestineRemembered 14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

reported here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem at Battle of Jenin

The text you reinserted is a copywrite violation. It is a word for word copy and paste of material found elsewhere. Please rewrite this subsection rather than simply continuing the copyvio. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 17:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The copyvio issue was that the Amnesty International section was not "used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under "fair use". It was a stand alone chunk of text stolen from another source. You have subsequently changed that, although I've not ran your new section through google... yet. Kyaa the Catlord 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary did not say that, misrepresentation... but in other news, as I said before, the copyvio text has been incorporated into a form which meets the standards for use of non-free content on Wikipedia. (Which doesn't mean its free and clear, since I'm always looking for plagiaristic inclusions. I'm a stickler, sorry.) Kyaa the Catlord 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I can't find three un-ref-tagged references and its driving me insane. :P The one in the infobox was hard to spot. :P Kyaa the Catlord 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Battle of Jenin

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 8 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Avi 14:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

-- Avi 14:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|I was on my way to self-revert this complete over-sight and mistake as soon as I accidentally spotted it on the 3RR board. Leaving a note saying I'd try to understand what was going on seems to have been what triggered the block! Having never even been warned for 3RR before (I'm keen never to edit-war), I didn't realise it was a danger that it could even affect someone adding material incrementally to one article (as is necessary to do a reasonable job on an article this big and muddled). (Incidentally, it's a 3RR, not a 4RR as apparently claimed). Please unblock me. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PalestineRemembered]] 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)}}

I've looked at the 3RR noticeboard report and I am having trouble finding the supposed more than three reverts. The "previous version reverted to" does not include the contested material that PalestineRemembered introduced in the three edits that are labeled as reverts. There may well be copyvio and editwarring going on, but this was not the block rationale and would be difficult to evaluate in the convoluted history of that article. Due to the brevity of the block, which at any rate was successful in stopping the possible edit war (don't get it started again, use the talk page!) and since the blocking admin is apparently offline, I will exceptionally unblock without prior request for comment by the blocking admin. Sandstein 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the unblock, especially in light of the edit warring having stopped, which was the primary reason for the block to begin with. So consider this (belated) approval/comment. -- Avi 18:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio Warning

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Battle of Jenin. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Kyaa the Catlord 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy on this. Don't copy from other articles. Certainly don't copy paragraphs or sentences. And don't paraphrase by changing a word here or there, or by breaking a compound sentence into two shorter sentences. All of these things are copyright violations. I haven't looked at the article so I don't know what's going on here, and I'm not saying you are doing any of these things. They are just things that shouldn't be done. For more guidance, see WP:C and Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ, and you can always post here if there is a question about something you'd like to add to an article. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

...or here to pre-clear excerpts you would like to use. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea what happened here, I've added a comment to the bottom of the text and somehow deleted everything above it. Firefox automatically reopens with the same windows as before, and I did a shut-down this afternoon, though I'm not clear how that could have caused this affect. I will leave this comment here for a reasonable time before I archive it. PalestineRemembered 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like it was a mistake, not vandalism. I'm not sure how he did that, but I don't think it was intentional. Kyaa the Catlord 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This edit violates WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Please comment on edits, not on editors. Jaakobou is aware of the WP:COI policy, and this sort of questioning violates WP:AGF. THF 23:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Preferred pronoun

Could you please quit referring to me as a her? Or at least use a neutral hir? I'm starting to think you're doing this intentionally. Kyaa the Catlord 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've treated you in a collegiate and supportive fashion despite (or maybe because) you appeared to be hormonal. The last reference I made to you (perhaps the first by gender?) says "when he raised her objections", and this as a result of the confusion. PalestineRemembered 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, comments like that will get you into trouble.Proabivouac 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I'm blocking you per the comments you made that are discussed here. Accusing fellow editors of warcrimes is beyond the pail. You have a long enough block record and have been here long enough you should know better. JoshuaZ 00:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think acting against me in this fashion is most unfortunate, giving the impression that a perfectly proper question (13:25, 6 August 2007) about Conflict of Interest doesn't have to answered.

Note how Jaakobou took immediate umbrage at my question, but otherwise stopped participating in Talk at Battle of Jenin. He made 6 edits to the Talk on the 4th of August, 6 edits on the 5th, 8 on the 6th (the last two complaining about my question) - but then stays away from Talk for over 72 hours until 22:57, 9 August 2007 when he sets about archiving it! This is *not* a Wikibreak, he makes 61 other edits in the meantime. On the 10th of August, he reverts to his previous pattern, making 11 edits to the TalkPage on that day. (Someone had better check my numbers, but there's no question that there's a long and highly suspicious break).

Under these circumstances, it seems reasonable to conclude that Jaakobou does indeed have a conflict of interest and should (as I politely suggested in the first place) recuse himself from this article. Please also note that I'm not the only editor who wanted an answer to this question, and that this is what brings me in to ask the question again - so this is not some kind of personal grudge I'm harboring.

Granted that I've rephrased the question (not an accusation, please) in quite lurid terms (probably unnecessarily), the basic question remains not just extremely valid - but the answer would appear to be that Jaakobou would be best not editing this article (unless he wishes to come completely clean as to his personal knowledge of the affair, which seems unlikely at this juncture).

Please note that the complaining editor has a long history of making allegations against people, effectively vandalising their TalkPages and personalising the issues, right up to and including inserting personal details about them in public. Editors this robust lose some of the protections extended by the system and careful administrators such as yourself. I did a very brief check around and discovered Jaakobou in serious conflict with 2 editors who are almost certainly far more polite and careful than I am - [10] [11] and [12], all from just about the same day, 14th April 2007. He regularily speaks of libel as if others have committed it eg here he's doing so in reference to public statements from a minister in the government of Israel.

Under these circumstances, it seems reasonable to lift this block. Not because I'm innocent of the charge (though I am, I've been very careful not to make any accusation, whatever other breach/s I'm guilty of), but because my behavior was necessary in the interests of the project. PalestineRemembered 10:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from non-admin. Please assume good faith: editors do not have a conflict of interest unless they declare the conflict or unless there is sound evidence. You would presumably be justifiably upset if someone asked you if you had any role in Palestinian suicide bombings to determine if you had a COI. This is why editors are not authorized to conduct depositions about conflicts of interest: ask the question "Do you have a conflict of interest?" once, and accept the answer. While Jaakabou's accusations of libel were incorrect (and I have cautioned him about them), WP:CIVIL prohibits obnoxious remarks beyond just those that incur civil liability. You were blocked for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and if you continue to claim that such insinuations are appropriate, I will argue for a longer block. (I am not an admin, and am thus obviously have no authority to deny an unblock request, and am not doing so here.) THF 10:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the community has not had any answer to the question about a potential Conflict of Interest.

Another editor wishes to know if there is a CoI, and repeated my question. Twice he asked the question - is doing this now to be considered a contravention of WP policy? (Please note there was no canvassing involved, public or private).

Please examine WP policy CoI, non-controversial edits, which says (amongst other things) "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as: ... etc". We don't know if Jaakobou has a CoI, but many of his edits in the article could fairly be described as "controversial".

If any actions of mine lead to suspicion about undeclared personal knowledge or participation in events detailed in Wikipedia, you have my word that I will either answer the question or at least refrain from editing the article in question. I would certainly *not* be upset by such questions, and I certainly wouldn't expect the community to side with me if I were to declare my upset, while still refusing to answer the question. PalestineRemembered 13:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I'm the "other editor"; I never would have dreamed of asking the question, except that Jaakobou's response when PR asked it was so suspiciously combative. PR, I don't believe you deserved to be blocked. On the other hand, note that I've asked the question without resorting to hyperbole and don't appear to be in any danger of being blocked, so it would appear that in some sense you did bring it upon yourself.

Here's a provocative, but important, question. What do you think a self-described Hezbollah member would face when editing Wikipedia? I suspect it would be a major uphill battle to avoid a community ban by default, regardless of how polite and moderate the guy was. And yet an IDF member who won't answer specific questions about his involvement in the very battle which he is now rewriting the history of not only gets a free pass, he gets people blocked by whining to AN/I. I almost wish I wrote Arabic well enough to pull of the impersonation, just for the hell of it. Eleland 13:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland, my "suspiciously combative" response to the blatantly phrased suggestion that i was a war criminal, was a somewhat belated 3rd level warning.^[13] i find your second paragraph to be treading in a similar suggestive fashion as PR, please avoid this type: "an IDF member... about his involvement... is now rewriting the history..." of baseless insinuations and accusative phrasing in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the discussion surrounding this vivid first-hand Israeli account of the bulldozing of the camp that set me worrying. If a Lebanese appeared here and edited to make the rocketing of Israel in June 2006 sound justified (over all published material, let alone the feelings of the victims), the community would be outraged and would stop him. Such things will happen one day - perhaps it'll be Serbs who might have served in Kosovo, Russians in Chechnya or Chinese in Tibet - in fact, some such people may be participating already. They'll not be allowed to practice, or appear to practice, denial (have a look at the discussion on Gazimestan speech, we simply don't let it happen). More than that, there would be strong objection to such people participating in a contentious fashion that interfered with consensus - and if they took a particular interest in a particular event, the community would most certainly want to know whether they took part in it.

Incidentally, I didn't check Jaakobou's UserPage before I asked him how far away he was - I half expected him to say "Over 4,000 miles". All regular Israelis would have been able to say "more than 4 miles away", so my line of question was hardly intrusive. PalestineRemembered 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Community Ban

I have proposed that a community ban be enacted against you. Please see this entry on the community sanction noticeboard. John254 02:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

CSN

Thank you for your answers at the CSN. FWIW, my personal opinion is that you were out of line with the "legal threat", but at least I was able to understand your perspective better. --Dweller 18:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My advocacy status

I've updated the advocacy section of my user page to better reflect my current position on dispute resolution. Let me know (either on or off wiki) if you have any questions. Mark Chovain 11:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments at the CN

Sorry. I genuinely hope a) I'm wrong and b) others don't share my concerns. Whatever happens, good luck. --Dweller 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good result. Hope it works out well. --Dweller 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I deeply appreciate that gesture, but from what little I know of other editors, I am struck by how much dedicated goodwill and effort is evinced by so many practiced editors. Their example prods me, somewhat disconcerted by the tenacity of ill-informed people in disrupting the composition of this encyclopedia by ill-advised opinions paraded as NPOV, to keep chipping away with my minor contributions so that, health willing, some years down the track, I may look back at the barnstar and say, well, yes, perhaps now I will not be embarrassed overly by what may have been a premature, if gracious, gesture of appreciation.Regards Nishidani 17:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship?

I saw you at the CSN board. If you follow strict requirements, I am willing to be your mentor. If so, let me know. Here are my requirements:

1. Don't edit too much because I am on wikipedia only about twice a week and can't watch you like a hawk. 2. Be willing to limit your editing and reading of certain articles, at least initially. (meaning you might have to stay away from certain articles for a while and slowly ease into certain articles) 3. Have a cooperative frame of mind. Don't come here to fight, even if others are fighters.

Note: You are such a hot potato that even my regular Jane account won't touch you. Even volunteering to help wikipedia as a whole in this way by working with someone like you is liable to get myself blocked. Don't abuse this gesture of kindness. Specialjane 05:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, comrade!

You have achieved a Wikipedia first! You've been subjected to an involuntary "mentorship" on the rationale that you were threatening to bring war crimes charges in the Hague against a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. Of course, a major contributing factor was that you were falsely accused of neo-Nazism by an admin, surely a capital WikiCrime. (Don't look for him to be forced into mentorship.) So apparently rather than being banned from editing, you'll be banned from effective editing on any article you actually care about. Feel free to correct spelling errors on List of inedible fruits, though. Subject to mentor approval. Eleland 05:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

i'd like to state that, regardless of some serious offenses, i did not seek you get a permanent block. i only desired a change in your easy trigger on inaccurate claims for others or about others. i hope you can learn from this experience and tone down the figurative speech and selective bias. to be frank, i'd advise you to find yourself different advocates/cliques who will guide you on the right path rather than ones that promote undesired behavior. that said, good luck in the future here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you think?

I want to thank you for your modifications in User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations‎. I have an idea of making a new article under the title "Israel and racism", I think this title is closer to the content in the page User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations‎. --Aaronshavit 10:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community sanctions noticeboard

Hi. The noticeboard is for cases that unambiguously need community action. It's not a substitute for dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Village pump, or relevant talk pages. You keep posting a comment there that isn't an actual case, and you've modified an archived section.[14] [15] This is not helpful. I recommend that you move the comment to a more appropriate venue. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, PalestineRemembered. I would like to second what Jehochman has said, and note that such a statement is actually apropos for your user page, but not for WP:CSN. Please leave the archive as is, and if you wish, copy the text you want to a more appropriate page. Thank you. -- Avi 15:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen guys, my TalkPage is a free-fire zone, where you can make any allegations you feel like and I won't correct you. I'm very, very used to this kind of treatment by now. Jaakobou has seen the apology I posted him (in the new section, per the instructions). If you'd been only a little bit quicker he'd not even be reminded I'm a decent guy. PalestineRemembered 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship

I have e-mailed you about mentorship. This shouldn't be interpreted as support for the content of your editing, but merely a hand of friendship to help others in trouble with WP edit. If you accept, please edit responsibly and don't abuse the helping hand. Since I don't visit WP daily, e-mail should allow you to be mentored and still edit daily or almost daily. If you accept, please start out slowly as far as editing, don't edit faster than I can mentor. Specialjane 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have always edited responsibly and, while I have admitted some minor breaches, in all the action taken against me and the heaps of sometimes very nasty allegations made against me, almost no evidence has ever been provided of me doing anything else. It was 10 months and 1360 edits (during which time I'd suffered 3 extraordinarly long and unexplained blocks, two Community Sanction attempts and an abandoned ArbCom I very much wanted) before I did anything that provoked general condemnation. I served my block for this incivility and (quite unasked-for) posted the victim a detailed and heartfelt apology. (The latter was deleted and then moved to my User:Page - this is par for the course, one of the minor harrassments I suffer is constant high-handed changes to my personal pages). I don't believe any mentor I accept will have any cause for concern about my editing. Nor need they have any concern about my status as a Single Purpose Account - despite continuing allegations, this has been fully accepted as being to policy and an attempt to force me to change my name was also defeated. PalestineRemembered 10:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The latter was deleted and then moved to my User:Page - this is par for the course, one of the minor harrassments I suffer is constant high-handed changes to my personal pages

— User:PalestineRemembered - 10:47, 16 August 2007

PR, the above is actually an example of why youmay engender the response that you do. If you were to check the Noticeboard page, you will see that your response was not deleted, but moved back to where it was when the discussion was archived. Here, I'll give you the direct link: WP:CSN#Statement by PalestineRemembered. It's placement on your user page was as a convenience for you, nothing more. When there exists a history of mischaracterizations of others' actions for the ill, be it deliberate or accidental, it does not create an atmosphere condusive for discussion on ANY topic, let alone controversial ones. As a piece of advice, quid pro quo is a powerful idea. Human psychology is such that people are more willing to assume good faith of people who THEMSELVES demonstrate the assumption of good faith. Thank you. -- Avi 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've decided it's all my fault, there must be something about me that leads otherwise sensible people to start behaving in this bizarre fashion when it comes to my contributions.

Please check this last edit to the CSN board. Note how the article size has jumped from 136,457 bytes to 178,783 bytes - this time, someone has managed to duplicate the entire discussion of this issue!

I've made a silly mistake of my own - I saw and believed the summary that goes with this edit, the one that says "Restoring archived version. PR's statement will be moved to his page for his use in more appropriate venues." I somehow expected other editors here to know the difference between "Copy" and "Move". Perhaps it's a character flaw I have, expecting others here to use words with their regular meaning.

If you're really bored, please examine the changes that have already been made to my contributions (and to the archive) to understand what a mess had been created (even before this last laughable mistake). I can't be bothered to document who (let alone why) anyone should modify the archive and blame me for it, but it starts here on 11:14, 15 August 2007.

I've even been trapped into modifying the archive myself, though only to correct what others have damaged. Seeing "Whoops - actually delete freestanding comment from board" 11:17, 15 August 2007 I assumed that the previous mess had been sorted, reverting my apology into the right place (and checking it afterwards) actually made the thing right. But only for a short time, obviously!

I'll delete whole bunches of stuff presently, it is my TalkPage, after all. It's not really a free-fire zone for people where others are welcome to get confused. PalestineRemembered 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR, yeah I knew 85dotwhatever wasn't you. (I posted my theory as to who it is on the sockpuppet request.) Kyaa the Catlord 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New commentary

PR, please remember the issue of our previous argument and avoid making personal attacks.

this comment that you left me:

Jaakobou is not in a strong position to ask others not to deface TalkPages, given his long record of this practice.^[16]

is a breach of WP:CIV and a very much inaccurate personal accusation (something i was hoping you will avoid). i also suggest you go over my comment again and notice i haven't accused anyone of anything and only noted you that i've asked you before to keep article discussions on the article talk. i have not accused anyone of defacing my talk page and i haven't used the word "deface" at all, so please don't jump to a conclusion that i'm attacking you and please avoid any claims about me or in my name in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedro/1948 Palestinian exodus - talk page

Why don't you use the talk page as all other did ? You just replaced his version by yours, therefore deleting former material. Alithien 06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok for your explanation :-) Concerning Pedro being the "arbitrator", I don't like the word. I think he is recognized as somebody neutral enough and knowing the topic enough to gather the information and write something good on the topic. But arbitrator... ;-) Alithien 08:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ok, seen like that, he is the "arbiter" of his page. But he is not "arbiter" on the topic and the main article. Alithien 08:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good :-) We will see when Pedro and Jordixtei come back. 4-5 is a good number of contributors to have a constructive work on a topic. Alithien 09:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

massacre title

You found 2 cases of civilians being killed and the said event being labeled a massacre, albeit controversially. I will not waste my time finding the literally thousands upon thousands of cases in which multiple civilians have been killed and the event has not been labeled a massacre. This is just silly. I find it surprising that these low-level unsupportable arguments are even being discussed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joebloetheschmo (talk • contribs) 07:38, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Entebbe talk page

I'm not sure why you reverted my signing of your contribution. ([17]) --Dweller 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Two thoughts. 1) Did you use five tildes? The absence of your username from the sig implies to me that you may not have done. 2) If you did, the instructions indicate that a bot will finish the job for you, which may take some time. Btw, this approach is very sensible and is worthy of some virtual applause. --Dweller 21:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm bothered that the 5 tildes isn't generating your sig properly, but it's quite possible the bot will take longer than 2 hours to turn up. If you solve the problem, let me know. I'm curious. --Dweller 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FOUR tildes give username and time. FIVE tildes gives just the time. THREE tildes gives just the username. -- Avi 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. It's worked. --Dweller 12:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Operation Entebbe

I find your attitude to including the views of the British Government about this incident extremely puzzling. Judging by the reports of the Times "Diplomats suspected Entebbe hijacking was an Israeli plot to discredit the PLO" and the BBC "Israel hijack role 'was queried'", there were quite serious suspicion that Israel had helped a splinter group of the PLO (in order to discredit the main organisation) and their help had contributed in some fashion to the hi-jack.

I don't know whether it's true or not, and neither do you - but it's clearly a significant viewpoint, amply supported by two very good RS's. What's your objection to putting it in? PalestineRemembered 21:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that there is no evidence that anyone believes or believed the theory besides this single unnamed contact of Colvin's. There are obviously plenty of reliable sources that reported how Colvin wrote down this contact's beliefs in his log, but no sources have actually shown that anyone else believes the theory. Thus it would be astounding undue weight to prominently display this anonymous person's claims as if they have any credence amongst historians. The minute I see evidence that the theory actually enjoys support among experts, I will be for mentioning it in the article. nadav (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have high regard for your dedication to policy, but I find this assertion from you puzzling. We cannot say who believed it - but the RS's certainly imply (one of them states in the headline) that there was fairly strong suspicion in the relevant parts of the British Government. Diplomats suspected Entebbe hijacking was an Israeli plot to discredit the PLO, The London [18] and "Israel hijack role 'was queried'" [19], the Times and BBC respectively. The logical understanding of these reports is that the Times and the BBC each spoke to one or more people in the relevant places and were told "Yes, we had a strong suspicion about this". Or even "Yes, we can prove what Israel did, it's just that we decided against having an international incident over it". I don't believe this was a "slow news day" (these papers are released in blocks to try and make sure the trivial stories are not picked up).

We have corroborative evidence from the period (Pro-Israel reports denounce British government for being mysteriously un-gracious towards Israel - I know I provided the standard excuse for this, but it expired in one week. Uganda was a relatively recent ex-colony and Britain considered carefully it's collaboration with the hi-jackers, rating it very serious - so we have no reason to think it's treatment of Israel received perfunctory attention and was somehow over-sighted. Palestinian society is/was? riven with collaborators).

When (some) RS's scream "No massacre" about Battle of Jenin, we accept what they say (against the sense of what we know and the cover-up behaviour very clearly on view, and despite allegations of war-crimes in the same articles). When two top RS's say "Suspicion" about this case, I think we should follow their lead.

(There are two problems going on with this RFC, we have an odd vandal who has been targeting this page for days and has now done the same to the RfC, and I cannot get it to show in the correct place, this partly explains why I'm putting this part of the discussion on your TalkPage). PalestineRemembered 07:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed many of the sources that covered this story (and I was the one who originally added the Times ref). Not one of them say that the theory was actually discussed further by the Brits beyond Colvin's writings (a longer excerpt of which is given in The Scotsman[20]. The original is at [21] if you want to pay £3.50 for the privilege.) Indeed, despite the sensational title used by the Times, it explicitly says later in the article that "There is no indication that the theory was taken further". So all we are left with is an entry in Colvin's writings detailing the claims made to him on the telephone, with no indication that this was taken any further. nadav (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about why the RfC isn't appearing. I recommend we directly insert it into the central RfC list manually (unless this would somehow obstruct the bot's function?) I didn't notice the problem with the talkpage, but you've made me very curious so I'll check. As for the Battle of Jenin comparison, I haven't been following that article (I've had less time for Wikipedia in the last month) so I don't have anything to say about that. nadav (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought, and think, that the policy of the encyclopedia is to report 'major viewpoints', and this is one of them (even though we're unsure how major it is). Someone almost certainly spoke to the Times and the BBC and the Scotsman and said "You still can't publish the real story in this case, but it'll all come out one day, and in the meantime here's a portion you can report". Otherwise, we'd be implying that these 3 sources are prone to bad-mouthing Israel on flimsy evidence, and I'd be quite astonished if that was the case. (The BBC examined it's own bias, and found it was pro-Israel in April 2006. Same report in PDF here).

Alternatively, if your take on policy is correct, then I can see it having far-reaching effects on the use of Reliable Sources in all sorts of other articles. The only "oddity" of any kind here is that the original informant is anonymous - which I believe lends credibility, suggesting that Colvin thought this was an informant worth protecting. The Scotsman clip details the big possible (and likely accrued) benefits to Israel of encouraging the hijack, so neither Colvin nor the informant are fools. Arafat's PLO indeed came to dominate, and (I think) everyone now agrees did less than nothing for the Palestinians. So this claim is very different from eg a journalist saying un-named people alleged "lots of killings" (though we'd probably report the latter too). PalestineRemembered 09:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the news sources were just looking for something interesting to report, and this extraordinary claim written in a government report is certainly interesting. I do think my interpretation of policy is correct; whenever there is a case of an unnamed source making an extraordinary claim with no indication that experts are taking it seriously, then I would be very hesitant about mentioning it in a main article. We are not a tabloid, so we are not duty-bound to report on every single conspiracy theory that pops up.

Also, I don't even see any proof that Colvin himself believed the theory. Indeed, after he explains the contact's reasoning that the operation was meant to weaken the PLO and prevent Israel from having to concede territory, Colvin writes his own opinion that "If the incident does lead to a re-appraisal of French Middle East policy (which seems unlikely), it is likely to lend weight to the arguments of those who call for an early resumption of moves leading to an overall peace settlement, including the creation of a Palestinian state on territory to be evacuated by Israel. Unless this is done, the indiscipline of the Palestinians will become more marked and incidents of this kind will become more frequent." His own analysis of the consequences of the plot thus contradicts those given by the contact: he thinks Entebbe will not have much influence on French policy, and if it does, it will only increase pressure on Israel to give up land. (By the way, notice the contact blames the Shin Beit, which is a domestic security force. We would expect Mossad to be the ones behind an international false-flag operation.) nadav (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bringing you reluctantly round obviously wouldn't help me getting articles edited "to policy". And I'm not sure how or whether I may use analogies in "argument" in a case like this. But please spend a minute considering the following 2 examples:

1) The "Pat Tillman was murdered" allegations. News-Google "Tillman + Murder" and the first significant RS hit is the IHT 1st Aug 07 saying "decided ... not a murder even though ... report suggested ... might have been inflicted at close range.", and there are several more using the same words. I can find just one report (from the No.1 British anti-war paper!) which says "may have been murdered". Even Democracy Now (2nd Aug 07) doesn't mention it. Yet the word "murder" now appears twice in the WP article as "suspected" and "suggested". This article first references Forbes Magazine, surely far less significant than the Times and the BBC. And the article it references doesn't use the word "murder", it has only a single mention of "crime", under "investigate whether". The other direct reference used in the WP article is a bit more damning, Editor and Publisher headlines "Was Tillman Murdered?". But they're not quoting anyone, and they don't use the word murder in the article. They only once use the same "investigate crime". In Tillman's case we don't know who said "3 bullets in the forehead", their names are blacked out. We don't know whether either of the writers thinks it was murder (apparently not). Might you object that "Tillman murdered" is just too believable? I'd find that very hard to accept (US forces never previously accused of covering up a fragging, that I'm aware of). Whereas the Entebbe allegation is not particularly "surprising" - deliberate or reckless Israeli actions have killed Israelis and UN personnel and westerners, including Americans. Pro-Israeli sources tell us there are billions of people around the world only too eager to believe any old tat about Israel - so "Israel did it" is a "major viewpont" almost by definition. Remember - all I need is a good case (perhaps backed by an experienced editor like yourself) that it's a "major viewpoint", and then policy says it belongs in the article. The more I think about it, the more "Israeli involvement" looks like a "major viewpoint". (Just to make it clear, I thought Tillman had been murdered as soon as I read the first reports, but I never expected to see it in WP until it came from RS).

2) I'm struggling to fashion a similar (explosive but currently "far from proven") assertion for a story that has not yet broken and may never break. How about a report that a (frightened and) un-named structural engineer had claimed (say) that the 911 Towers were fundamentally defective, and would have fallen in any significant multi-story fire? (I'm casting around to think of an allegation as damaging to US interests as the Operation Entebbe allegations could be to Israel's interests, I'm not suggesting that the above is the case). I'm pretty sure allegations like that would belong in the encyclopedia, whether the RS or their source reporting them claimed to believe the claims or not. (In fact, something approaching this claim is in our 911 article already - "fireproofing ... was blown off by the initial impact ... stairwells were not adequately reinforced"!)

So - I've presented a way that would genuinely convince me these new "Operation Entebbe" details should be excluded/ignored from articles (despite the Times and the BBC refering to these claims). But the existing balance (in the two roughly similar cases I can think of) is very much in favour of publication. Please scratch your head for examples that would swing the other way (or suggest ways my examples don't fit!). PalestineRemembered 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguments by comparison to other articles can be treacherous—I am sure you are familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nonetheless, I am still trying to understand the analogies you raise, though I am unfamiliar with the Pat Tillman events. I looked at the articles, and in both cases, the extraordinary claims are attributed to experts who are definitely in a position to know what they are talking about. In the case of 1), it cites the opinions of the army medical doctors who examined Tillman's body. Moreover, notice that only two lines are devoted to these experts' opinions, not a whole section as was the case with the Entebbe article. As for 2), I don't know about your hypothetical; I would probably be against including some random opinion. However, the parenthetical example you gave is definitely OK: it refers to an official engineering report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology! Recapitulating, arguing by example is not so useful on Wikipedia. Across the board, though, I feel that we should never give much space in main articles to fringe theories advanced by unknowns that have not been taken seriously by experts. In the particular case of Entebbe, perhaps I could be convinced that we should have one or two lines about the theory (just because it was widely reported), especially if you find a source indicating it's now widely believed in certain sectors. nadav (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentor has been blocked

[22] I suppose you should start a thread on WP:AN and ask for advice on how to proceed. nadav (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears I was to be "mentored" by a known mis-behavour. Your ball, I think! PalestineRemembered 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks against me

I've posted an alert about your personal attacks against me on WP:WQA. Please stop. Dlabtot 18:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you do want to make the accusation, the correct place to do it would be WP:SSP, not my talk page. Dlabtot 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but the very limited nature of this users contributions log (2 or 3 days of posting) strike me as highly suspicious. The edits of this user have defended the Palestinians (as I'm sometimes inclined to do) and are very welcome. But they're not welcome if this is a sock.

Look -- I made AN ERROR in one of my edits to the Battle of Jenin page. I mistakenly thought the HRW report did not say there was no evidence of a massacre. (or maybe it was the other report, don't exactly remember)... Mea culpa. I made a mistake. That doesn't mean I'm a sock puppet trying to discredit your viewpoint. My polite suggestion is to please stop making accusations of sock-puppetry on my talk page. Observe my behavior, if you are so inclined. If, after you've cooled down a bit, you still think I'm a sock puppet, register the complaint in the appropriate place: [[WP::SSP]] Dlabtot 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If this user was originally acting in good faith, and was handed out long and completely unwarranted blocks (as happened to me), and has retaliated by creating new accounts (as I refused to do), then I'd consider raising their case and getting the original block lifted. It's your call, User:Dlabtot. PalestineRemembered 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I don't even know what this comment means. Dlabtot 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask, what did you attempt to accomplish with this edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHamas&diff=154032196&oldid=153147498

What gain did you intend for there to be? The puppets are indefblocked, and cannot affect the article anymore? Outside of trying to impugn someone's reputation, I am unsure as to the net benefit. Correct me if I am mistaken. -- Avi 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if I may respectfully play devil's advocate, if you were to be banned for disruption and/or personal attacks (as was discussed recently), it would be proper for Isarig to post notice of the bloack/ban on article pages to help restore editor confidence in the project?

Personally, I disagree with both. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia. "Keeping score" ala the Hatfield-McCoy feud, in my opinion, only serves to further distance the collaborative spirit, not strengthen it. -- Avi 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I blocked you for 15min to think about which mentor you would be choosing. Anyone can unblock you if you come up w/ a name before the block is expired. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone coming forward to "help" me (judging by everything that's gone before) will be either harrassed or perma-blocked. "Supporters" of mine will suffer immediate personal attack. The only other offer I've had of "Mentorship" objects to sock-puppets being exposed/editors warned against sockpuppets that have been operating/people reminded that sock-puppetry is a moderately serious offence in Wikipedialand. Pardon me for thinking that the integrity of the project is under threat - but that it's people like me (who are straight down the line and honest) who are considered the biggest threat. PalestineRemembered 07:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, it is WP:TALK. Talk pages are set to discuss the subject of the article and are never used as a noticeboard. It is better that you forget about the sock issue. Nadav is interested to help you as well as me and probably Avi or some other admin. All of us would make sure there would be no sockpuppetry or biased editing. How is that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's high time a diverse group of teethful editors came together and attempted to bring consistency of treatment to some of the articles and other entities we're thinking of. PalestineRemembered 08:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Per the topic discussed with you earlier, I have opened up a section on the admin noticeboard to facilitate implementation the suggested mentorship. -- Avi 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig

I'd have to say that it probably isn't very proper to go around like this and put this note on article talk pages. Having said that, I probably would not have known that all that was going if I hadn't seen Avi's revert. Just went over to chime in, so it was good to see in that sense. But in my opinion, you should probably not do this, and you should revert that msg you just restored. Its just going to cause more trouble than its worth. Tarc 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, as I mentioned above, it is edits such as that one which led to suggestions that you be mentored. -- Avi 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WQA response

With regard to your comments on User talk:Dlabtot: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This notice is in reference to your accusations of sock-puppetry at that user's talk page, and serves to close the WQA that references you. Please note that an accusation of sock puppetry made directly to the editor in question is considered by many Wikipedians to be a form of personal attack. As noted in the discussion on WP:WQA, the correct venue for reporting such suspected behavior is WP:SSP. --Darkwind (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the established process is useable in this case. I've no idea who the "sock-master" might be and it doesn't matter, I'm not attempting to get a big investigation going, seeking the blocking of culprits. User talk:Dlabtot looks like an experienced editor starting afresh under a new name, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. However, such behaviour is suspicious, and passing editors who notice it are entitled (I'd have supposed) to politely query what's going on. I should have had an explanation (perhaps previous name too close to real name, harrassment etc). When I got bluster in return, I repeated what I'd said, this users contribution pattern gives cause for suspicion. On this users 3rd day of posting they edited 24 times. The day afterwards (when I'd pointed out how suspicious the pattern was), there were two edits, then a break of a day, then 2 more edits. I think I scored a goal, without involving anyone else. The user has taken to heart what I said and behaviour to policy has been improved. Of course, it's always possible I hit on a real abuser, who will learn lessons from this occasion and return with more cunning. But I've succeeded in putting them to a lot of trouble, while avoiding it for us. I think you should applaud my action! PalestineRemembered 11:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

NO I HAVE NOT 'TAKEN TO HEART' WHAT YOU SAID. Your attack against me was a falsehood. Why would I 'take to heart' a lie told about me? The fact is, I never edited Wikipedia until August 8, 2007, I made a few anon edits from 12.32.36.103 and then I registered my username and have made the rest of my edits as dlabtot. Rather than reject the very sound advice given to you by User:Darkwind, you might want to consider the possibility -- however unlikely it may seem to you -- that you have made a mistake. Dlabtot 19:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you've denied it (and explained yourself) I have no difficulty atall accepting what you say. Puzzled you've acted in the way you've done, but it'll all come out in the wash. PalestineRemembered 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PR, you should know that having a sockpuppet is not by itself a problem whatsoever. Also, an experienced editor can also start using a new account instead of his old one (unless he is blocked/banned). The only thing prohibited is for an editor to disrupt the project by using the sockpuppet to support his own arguments in debates or "votes". In any case, I'm glad that you have dropped this matter; it's not good to accuse people without proof they've done something wrong. And, of course, there are proper procedural ways of doing that. nadav (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

May I quote you that there is no need to accuse people without proof they've done something wrong? How about accusing people when there is proof positive that they'd done no wrong? PalestineRemembered 11:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship and thanks

I'm afraid I do not have the time to dedicate to mentorship, but I will seek out the other fair-minded administrators I have seen here on Wikipedia and see if we can find a mentor who isn't a sockpuppet out to ruin your reputation this time. Thank you for the barnstar, I'm just glad it is out in the open and something is finally being done about it. Italia^vivi 20:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered has never edit-warred

Hi Nadav I thought you might like to know that I've never edit-warred. Kiryat Gat doesn't need protection against me. PalestineRemembered 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why I wanted the article to not be protected anymore. It was originally protected on 30 July, but today protection was lifted.[23] I hope you were following the talk discussion; I'll add two sentences or so with links to Faluja and the article on the military operation. If you want to change the text, it would be a good idea I think to suggest your alternative text on the talk first to avoid any controversy. Best, nadav (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian Exodus

Hi PR,

I've been watching the talk here [24] and was wondering if you could add it to User:Pedro Gonnet/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.

I haven't had too much time to work on it myself, but I was thinking of adding the main sections (i.e. the different causes) to the article as soon as they've got some meat. We could then work on shifting information from the theories part to the causes part...

In any case, any help is welcome!

Cheers and thanks, Pedro Gonnet 14:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about his comments. Add the information and if it is good (i.e. well-sourced and on-topic), then there will be no reason to remove it. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 07:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings re: AoIA

Hi. I don't think we've corresponded before but I'd like to give you some feedback on your recent comment at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Certainly, I agree that the discussion has consumed lots of time and effort. I happen to think that this (time-consuming effort) reflects a sense that there is still an underlying discomfort and an absence of stable consensus (in the sense of broad mutual acceptance) over the article title. You disagree and say that the current title has a rough consensus. However, you then say "attempts to change it [title] start to look like disruption" and you specifically express concern about the back-and-forth over votes. Here you've made a sweeping and negative characterization of efforts by many people, including my own efforts, in which I've invested a fair amount of time. (See next section, also Talk Archive 24.) I feel discouraged by your implication that I and various conversation partners are disruptive. Instead, I think that I and many others are making good faith efforts to resolve a difficult question. If you don't mind my saying so, you could play a more constructive role by stating your Oppose vote with policy-based reasons alone. This would enable those who choose to spend time on reconsidering the title to take into account your reasoning. In any case, I do wish you'd strikeout or remove the phrases in your statement that express negativity about our efforts. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 14:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I like your idea of trying to cut out the "dross and back-chat" especially if the questioning gets to be "tiresome and intimidating." Your idea for a separate page on renaming has merit too, though I see little point in continued straw polls and voting at this stage. On the other hand, I see two strong reasons to revisit the article name. First, voting on various proposals shows that people are pretty split. The "allegations" compromise still left many dissatisfied. Second, more importantly, the current title has weaknesses in terms of WP Policy, which various proponents of the article concede. I worked on a policy-related discussion here. As I tried to tease out people's responses, perhaps you would have found me tiresome but hopefully not intimidating! If and when you have a chance to look at that discussion, I'd be curious to get your opinion. Meanwhile, take care. HG | Talk 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I really like what you said in reply, e.g. about your willingness to change your mind, the value of a personal page analysis, the collegiate way we should be working together. I suppose we disagree insofar as I'd feel more strongly about going beyond the "least worst" title, but you've left me with a quite positive impression now (compared to your comments on the article's Talk page), thanks. Meanwhile, I did comment on the Jenin page. Since you expressed initial concerns, let me know whether you feel I wrote something inappropriate. HG | Talk 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You just said some kind words about me on my talk page (thanks!), though you are addressing Steve Sm8900. You guys are welcome to keep talking to each other thru my talk page, I don't mind esp if it keeps things less heated. Presumably this works if you both watch my Talk and use edit summaries. Otherwise, you might contact his User Talk. I'm reluctant to directly relay your WP:Canvass concerns because, re-reading the guideline and having just me in contact with him on another matter, I'm not sure his note to me was unacceptable or disruptive (just a bit hyperbolic :-). Anyway, I'm also glad you and I have spoken directly. Best wishes. HG | Talk 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for your friendly tho' skeptical comments about the renaming discusions, now moved here. I made some responsive changes. I'd welcome more, and respect your wish to stay out of the AoIA swamp (allusion to your funny comment) and swim in the far clearer waters (not!) of the Battle of Jenin. ;) Ciao. HG | Talk 21:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Jenin

Revert if you don't want the heading. Thanks.

Hi PR. I'm trying to stay clear of Jenin, so to speak, but I will reply to your note on my Talk. You characterize the wingsofchg sources as sources demonstrating the Minor View and Major View. But I think that they claim to demonstrate something slightly yet significantly different: the Minority Knowledgeable View and the Majority Less-knowledgeable View. See? As a result: Since Wikipedia depends on knowledge, not just a majority, the article needs to focus on Knowledgeable Views per reliable sources. Even if you don't agree with me, do you understand how I am distinguishing our viewpoints? (Well, that sounds a bit silly but I think mutual understanding is an important step....) Best, HG | Talk 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: your reply on my Talk. You again ask which of your 5 points I find problematic. My answer is given above (pertaining to #3 and #4 if I grok your numbering). I don't understand what's not clear in your mind here. However, I wonder if your reply regarding the mortality figures (whether True or Verified) rather misses my concerns. Why? Because it still sounds like you are using these sources only to deal with the discourse using 'massacre' language, not with the mortality count. In reply to my original comment at Talk:Battle of Jenin, you said you didn't know quite what editing changes you'd make based on your cited wingsofchange sources and your inferences. (I added a reply there too, which you might look at.) Good luck. HG | Talk 18:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem - my argument breaks down into 5 very simple points/assertions. The sources collected by "windsofchange.com" (#1) state that their version of events (#2) is a "Minor View" (#3) (eg "reports that a massacre did not occur have received scant attention in the Western news media.") Our "Battle of Jenin" article is written around this "Minor View" (#4), in total opposition to Wikipedia policy (#5). Which one of these 5 points do you think is faulty? PalestineRemembered 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated above: #3 and #4, because (as stated above) the sources would be more accurately characterized or inferred (using what I perceive to be your method) as discussing the Minority Knowledgeable View and the Majority Less-knowledgeable View. (FYI better style to put ## before the text.) Also, if you don't mind my saying so, when you write that your argument is "very simple" then your words imply that I am too dense to get it. Of course, I know you're being perfectly gentlemanly here. So I don't think you're insulting, but you are not sufficiently putting yourself in the shoes of those (Steve, me, Kyaa, others?) who question your approach. For what it's worth -- my recommendation is (i) you and I take a 24 hr break from this thread, (ii) maybe folks shouldn't fuel the heat of discussion at Talk:BoJ, and (iii) you might work on a few sentences and footnotes that rely on the wingsofchange sources. These could be new or edited sentences. It's my sense that the BoJ Talk is started to be more exhausting than editorially constructive. Thanks for staying in touch. HG | Talk 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I didn't recognise "#3 and #4" as relating to my own numbering (perhaps because I was irritated by the two halves of the discussion being in two different places until I re-united them). I still don't understand what you're saying - windsofchange.com believe that there was no massacre. But they make little attempt to demonstrate it (having, I think, only a single, likely distorted quote from one Palestinian) - concentrating on abusing the media that disagrees with them. These other media sources (they concentrate on the British papers, but I suspect they had very similar problems with US media) were becoming even more loud in their condemnation of the IDF once they've been allowed into the camp and see for themselves what has happened. Their attempt top be the "Minority but Knowledgeable View" falls flat on it's face (even if it wasn't nonsense as regards WP:NPOV).

Coming to this affair in order to write an article for the encyclopedia and with no preconceptions, we have a problem initially deciding which view is the "Major" and which is the "Minor". However, it must be rapidly obvious that the "No Massacre" people are angry, likely badly informed - and admit that they're in a minority. The article needs to be written from the "Atrocity & possible Massacre" angle, because that's clearly the "Major View". Even the "Minority View" people tell us this is the case!

The Battle of Jenin TalkPages are sad memorials to sensible, "academic" people being driven up the wall by people who refuse to engage in any form of sensible discussion. That's not what is happening here - but the Minority Knowledgeable View and the Majority Less-knowledgeable View are unrecognisable in WP policy. You'd not even make that claim if you'd looked at the sources, since the windsofchange.com are angry and badly informed, whereas their targets are reporting what they'd actually been to see. PalestineRemembered 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You needn't apologize. Just to clarify on your last sentence -- I'm not claiming that the sources are Knowledgeable vs. Less-Knowledgeable, it's what you call the Minor View that distinguishes itself as more Knowledgeable. Get it? When you try to use Their View to prove a point, you are ignoring that their view subsumes a Knowledge evaluation. Anyway, let's give it a rest. HG | Talk 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still baffled. Commentaries/Op-Eds/Blogs are always written as if they were "Knowledgable". Most of them are written as if they were "Majority Knowledgable", it's (highly?) unusual to see them claiming to be "Minority Knowledgable" - but also very significant! We'd not accept their arguments and write our articles around their view anyway - and we'd certainly not write articles around those arguments if they admit they're "Minority"!

If you think I'm wearing you down by simple dogged bone-headedness, then you'd be tasting the medicine handed out to a considerable group who've previously been forced from Battle of Jenin by tactics much more tiresome than mine. Those people were "thoughtful and academic" contributors (much like you, in fact) and they've been driven off by the "No Massacre" crowd. The biggest difference between them and you may be that they assiduously tried to answer all questions before they gave up in frustration. PalestineRemembered 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HG" Well, don't forget I may have other reasons to feel worn down at times  :--) Let me divert your attention with a different topic. What do you know about the history of pro/con arguments on the (alternative) AoIA title "Israel and apartheid"? Tiamut and I have discussed it on Talk:AoIA, but you can reply on my User Talk if we seem to be feeding the trolls (per Nagle's concern). Thanks. HG | Talk 22:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I fear all your good work, attempting to make better use of references at Battle of Jenin has come to less than nought. See the nonsense that's going on there now. This on top of what was going on before - it's almost as if your wise words have made the problem worse. PalestineRemembered 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for addressing me in a complimentary manner. You thereby expose yourself to more unsolicited advice ;--) Having glanced at this talk page, I'm no mentor, but I suggest you find yourself a diversion, a way to chill out, or a haven for uncontroversial editing, until this settles down. You won't do yourself (or what you care about) much good while this is so heated up. Calmly and respectfully yours, HG | Talk 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How can I make sure that this article doesn't lose the "Totally disputed" tag while it's in this shocking state? PalestineRemembered 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, for all I know, maybe you can't make sure of that. I don't know the exact state of the Talk over the tag. But I don't need to know. The tag is not so vital you can't revisit it in a few days, a week, etc. If the tag is under current discussion, you can just leave a deliberately courteous note, about how you beg to differ and will check back later on when the discussion is less heated. I admit I might have trouble following this advice myself, but there you have it. (Hey, partly thanks to you, I've been putting my energy into drafting material on special user pages, before placing them on the Talk pages. I want to let things cool off and I don't want to exacerbate Nagle's concern that I'm feeding trollism. So maybe I'm taking the advice. Maybe you could work on a careful exposition on a user page.) 2 cents, plus or minus a half cent. HG | Talk 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG - you've asked people to strike out all personal attacks, incivility and so forth on the Talk:Battle of Jenin page - an excellent idea. I'm not sure I'm guilty of any. The nearest to a dodgy one is this, which I suppose I could strike through to show good will. Another one is here - but I see no reason to strike any of this out (particularily when shortly afterwards we discovered this editor was running abusive socks). I do get involved in angry exchanges - see this, but I'm calmly squashing angry and highly POV attacks on me and my contributions (watch the subsequent exchange with Isarig, the final contribution is this from me). Here's another edit that likely upset people - but it's totally non-personal and proper. Also this one, [25], [26], [27] .... I needn't go on, you can search the TalkPage yourself.

Why am I moaning to you like this? Well, it would be a shame if you came to this mediation suspecting me of personal attacks and so forth, and that I'm one of the problems with this article. I don't believe I am. PalestineRemembered 09:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very glad to hear from you about user conduct in Talk. I'd still ask you to strikeout as appropriate, esp from recent sections. You can revise to kinder wording when a point really needs to be there. (maybe mark revisions with // x y z // ) You or I can note on the Talk page that you've started/done this. Even if others decline to do so, I can't think of any real disadvantages for you. HG | Talk 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. If you aren't sure what people find troubling, you can say that you've started and that you're open to further changes of unkind wording that others have felt. Exceedingly politely yours, HG | Talk 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, I thought this might be a good spot to move your editing ideas from mentoring page. It's mostly Jenin (except for one on Begin). Take care. HG | Talk 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Menachem Begin - fix the garbled nonsense that's crept in.

Edits needing more work, discussion etc: Battle of Jenin

• Fix the death toll at Battle of Jenin - it's clearly in the 100s (one PA estimate not long after the incident was 375 for all the incursions on the West Bank). The "56" number supposedly from the PA is almost certainly false, ditto the "52" number which seems to have been the bodies in the hospital.
• Add Sharon says (immediately before the incursions) "Palestinians must be hit and it must be very painful ... We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price." The fact that these incursions were intended to be punitive ("communal punishment" maybe?) has been entirely glossed over.
• Add adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (Zalmon Shoval) told the BBC on 18th April that the United Nations special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen "has no business whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong". This is while the UN is preparing to come and before it's barred from doing so. (Shoval also says 65 bodies recovered!).
• Add the story of the three refrigerated trailers that were driven into the camp during the period that all observers (and medical attention) were excluded from the camp for 4/5/6/7 days. Israel announced it according to one of the few newspapers in the UK not lashed by watch.windsofchange.net. And an Israeli newspaper confirmed the three trailers story. It's possible the trailers were indeed only used so that soldiers could sleep there in comfort - but an NPOV article would mention them and hint at the suspicion engendered.
• Research and add the widely testified allegation of a trench filled with 30 bodies has been left out. (though it is possible that this is the desperate response of the hospital, under total lock-down for 9 days and under siege for 14 days).
• Add clips from the interview given by the bulldozer driver to an Israeli
• Add an account of the third "international observer/human rights" group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation".
• Add the Irish woman who knew Jenin well. She got herself trapped in Ramallah while the worst of the attack was on, but returned to Jenin, put herself at great risk and was eventually shot and badly injured by the IDF. (Ian Hook was shot and killed about the same time).
• Add mention of the earlier and later armed incursions.
• Re-structure the article so it's not around a "No Massacre Thesis" beloved of the defenders of Israel.
• Add mention of the small massacre that is credibly reported. See [28] (and the Independent newspaper).
• Repair and expand the human-rights organisations reports, particularily that of Amnesty.

ANI & Jaakobou

Hi.

Personally, I would suggest that neither of you "talk" to each other, directly or indirectly, for the next few weeks and let some of the emotions settle.

No, I do not think you were inappropriate, per se, but it seems that the both of you have histories of accusations of perceived personal attack-type editing.

Were I your mentor, I would advise you that part of being a part of the wiki project is learning to "swallow" some of the garbage that comes along with editing emotionally-charged topics. Sometimes, one just has to let the other person get the last word. Our goal here should not be "right" vs. "wrong"; there is no answer for that. Our goal is to make the best, least partisan, most informative encyclopedia. Therefore, it is appropriate to follow official channels, and better not to respond directly, especially if the comments make you "see red".

People with a history of perceived attacks are often, understandably, afforded less benefit of the doubt due to that history. It takes a while to rebuild that "good will", and it is not easy.

Speaking of which, have you found a mentor, or would you like some help trying to get one?

-- Avi 15:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I'm writing to let you know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat has been resolved and archived. Thanks for participating. Bigglove 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes, to answer the question posed in your edit summary, the RFC has been closed and archived. This has been done by taking it off the active list and putting it on the archived list. Please don't add stuff from this point on. THANKS. Bigglove 13:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh

I just noticed your edit and quick-self-revert to Lough Neagh. I nearly did exactly the same thing myself :). After reading both sides of the argument though, I've written up a sort of a framework that might help them resolve that dispute. Feel free to take part in the discussion if you want a bit of a change of scenery. Mark Chovain 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Testimonials"

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

i simply don't have any more patience^{[29] , [30] , [31]} for your incivility and "testimonials" about me.^[32]

we've been through this at a community sanctions board already, but i don't see any improvement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. in case it wasn't clear, i did not appreciate you claiming i have "apparent enthusiasm for the ADL". i don't go around making bogus claims about who you are enthusiastic about... and i most certainly am not chasing you around with "commentary". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

i really don't understand why you treat my page as a blog, it is quite rude to copy-paste my argument with User:G-Dett on my page just so you can tell me you believe him to be a "really serious academic".^[33] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Accidental deletion of others' comments

You might want to repair this. Jakew 20:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you copy them into the corresponding talk page, with a note indicating that you've done so? Jakew 20:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need my permission, as I'm sure you know, but I'd suggest leaving it alone. Jakew 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Morris and EoF, AGF and No Canvassing

PR, I don't have time now to deal with that article. If you don't mind, I will nevertheless express what you may collegially assume is "tough love" or "kind but tough" talk:

• You might consider the following plausible perspectives, (1) Morris has multiple writings and they may not be perfectly consistent, (2) it looks like the quotes use Morris for evidence (e.g., Arab leaders' orders), not merely for a conclusion about EoF percentage-wise, (3) does the 1st quote itself qualifies the EoF view ("reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side").
• Even if you're right, your language is heated and a bit uncharitable, i.e. not assuming good faith. For instance, in the user's words "all evidence for EoF or any other cause given by any reliable historian is acceptable without qualification" you interpret "without qualification" (italics added) to mean that the user is giving the "evidence" without qualification (which Morris does himself, #3 above). However, it is more charitable and more grammatical to assume that "without qualification" refers to the preceding noun phrase "reliable historian", i.e. Morris is acceptable as a reliable source of evidence in every article section. But you jump quickly to a cherry-picking charge, rather than ask your interlocutor questions. It's better to clarify, or at least reflect back how you read the person, before attacking them.
• You also appear not AGF when you tell me "the statement suggests there are editors who have veto power over what appears in articles." This seems like a personalizing and escalating attack. As I recently told Itzse about reductionist characterizations of Tiamut, even if you jump to these kind of conclusions about another editor (and even if it's "True"!), the etiquette here is to keep those thoughts to yourself. You should assume, and appeal to, the best qualities and motivations of fellow editors.
• Finally, why are you sending me an unsolicited request to intervene on a substantive question for an article I've never edited? I noticed that you recently accused Steve of a WP:CANVASS violation. Maybe valid, beats me. But don't look like you're calling a kettle. Of course, I don't mind your message -- indeed, I welcome it, knowing that you'll chew any straight dope I toss back at you -- but are you sure my welcome would nullify a Canvass accusation? (If so, did you check whether the other users welcomed Steve's msgs?)

• Anyway, it was smart of you to test your reactions with me, rather than on that Talk page w/GHCool. This is an appropriate use of our relationship and I hope you'll continue to enrich it. (Maybe more self-reflective if, rather than asking me questions about content, you preface by asking for advice about your own reactions.)

Unpredictably yet nevertheless, your truly, HG | Talk 07:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

appreciate you're not well up on this particular topic and I was not (I'm pretty sure) inviting you to put on your hob-nail boots and come over to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I was looking to you to express your views on WP:Policy. I was particularily interested in your views on #1) the practice of "cherry-picking" quotations, something that would render worthless the writings of any and every serious historian on any topic. #2) the practice of hi-jacking discussions with mis-leading section titles (Battle of Jenin suffers badly from this effect, "massacre" is the only discussion allowed on the table, even before we get "No Massacre" rammed down our throats).

Incidentally, AGF is permanently violated in this case, since this editor quotes me in ways intended to disparage my contributions 4 times on his own UserPage. I do not believe this was due to any personalising behaviour on my part.

Over and above your comments on the two Policy matters above, perhaps you'd comment on whether it would be right for me to use my UserPage to highlight this other editor's claim - eg "all evidence for EoF or any other cause given by any reliable historian is acceptable without qualification." PalestineRemembered 08:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my boots are in storage and I wear ballet slippers in WP. You'd save me clicks if you added a Talk-link to your signature, btw. Your #1 q about cherry-picking is answered w/my 1st bullet. That is, it doesn't look like necessarily like an inappropriate quote selection (cherry-picking) from Morris. So don't lead the witness (me). But instead of trying to figure out a Policy violation to pin on your battle-partner co-editor, I really do think, PR, you could just propose in Talk an edit that would reframe the quote with a sufficient yet neutral (not over-the-top, let's make a point) qualifier, as you feel is justified by the Morris' writings. Your #2 q. To what misleading section title do you refer? Also, (another kettle critique by me, when you it's "the only discussion allowed on the table," doesn't it sound like you're trying Own or have veto pwr over the page? ;->

• Now you've made me curious about User:GHcool's accusations and rebuttals. In what we do you feel disparaged? He doesn't directly characterize you, as a User, in a way that strikes me as his assuming your bad faith. If you stand by your quotes, then what is your concern? Perhaps you are concerned that your quotes reflect poorly on you. (Indeed, I admit I think so.) If you regret your quotes in part, then maybe you'd like the situation remedied or ameliorated. If so, I would offer to serve as an intermediary in approaching GHcool. HG | Talk 11:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG - you've asked people to strike out all personal attacks, incivility and so forth on the Talk:Battle of Jenin page - an excellent idea. I'm not sure I'm guilty of any. The nearest to a dodgy one is this, which I suppose I could strike through to show good will. Another one is here - but I see no reason to strike any of this out (particularily when shortly afterwards we discovered this editor was running abusive socks). I do get involved in angry exchanges - see this, but I'm calmly squashing angry and highly POV attacks on me and my contributions (watch the subsequent exchange with Isarig, the final contribution is this from me). Here's another edit that likely upset people - but it's totally non-personal and proper. Also this one, [34], [35], [36] .... I needn't go on, you can search the TalkPage yourself.

Why am I moaning to you like this? Well, it would be a shame if you came to this mediation suspecting me of personal attacks and so forth, and that I'm one of the problems with this article. I don't believe I am. PalestineRemembered 09:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very glad to hear from you about user conduct in Talk. I'd still ask you to strikeout as appropriate, esp from recent sections. You can revise to kinder wording when a point really needs to be there. (maybe mark revisions with // x y z // ) You or I can note on the Talk page that you've started/done this. Even if others decline to do so, I can't think of any real disadvantages for you. HG | Talk 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you aren't sure what people find troubling, you can say that you've started and that you're open to further changes of unkind wording that others have felt. Exceedingly politely yours, HG | Talk 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I trust some of the people who claimed to be so very, very interested in this article are not now going to tell you/me/us "Gee, I'll pass on the invitation to present any evidence to the mediator because I'm no good at writing coherently - but I demand you still treat me as a genuine participant in the project" If this arises, may I break my tight self-imposed restraint and blow them a raspberry?

(Please inform me when you've read this response, because I'll have to come back and strike it through in case anyone snooping on your TalkPage is offended by it). PalestineRemembered 13:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. LOL, can't you blow a raspberry off-line?! Anyway, consider it struck, ta da! (FYI If you referred to me as "the mediator" let me note that I'm only serving as a temporary facilitator now.) Next question: Now that I've had a positive, coincidental interaction w/GHcool, it may be easier for me to deal with those disparaging use of your quotes. Why wouldn't you want to take me up on this? See your around, HG | Talk 11:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Pedro Gonnet/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian Exodus

Uhm, what did you just edit there? Is that work in progress or did the title get clobbered by accident? Cheers and thanks, Pedro Gonnet 13:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

cherry quote from you ;-)

You wrote this :

Elsewhere we know that Morris puts the "Endorsement of Flight" (or EoF) theory as accounting for around 5% of the exodus, with the 'Transfer principle' theory basically accounting for the rest. (This problem seems to have been written into the article with the deceptive titles of sections, something I've noticed before)..

This is not correct.
The "transfer principle" has never been a reason given by Benny Morris for any single refugee. He gives many precise causes and just underline the events must be read also having in mind this element of the context : the transfer was in every leader's mind. No more, no less. But a "cause" ? Never. Alithien 14:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PM,

Sorry to be rude but this : "All the latter categories count as "transfer" or whatever modern word we apply" is your mind but not Morris. And it has nothing to do with the "transfer" (let's say) theory he talks about. Did you read the chapter concerning the "transfer idea" in Morris's book ?

I think not.

Alithien 15:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

But what on earth are you talking about ?

I do not understand you. :-( Alithien 15:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship and some frankness

Yay or nay, discussion about removal of your editing privileges was placed on hold subject to your undergoing mentorship. It has been some time now; have you a mentor yet? -- Avi 17:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of inedible fruits is a good article.

I can ask another editor if he would be willing to do so, but in the face of this relentless harrassment the chances are not amazingly good. I can go back to editing the spelling of List of inedible fruits if that is your wish. PalestineRemembered

PalestineRemembered, let me be frank. You have been the object of a discussion on Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. Whether or not you feel it justified, it does result from the patterns of behavior that you represent. The old adage relating the relative proximity of soot-laden breezes and incandescently gaseous oxidation comes to mind. You specialize in controversial articles and enough members of the community felt that your presence, style, and methods of interacting with other editors of the wikipedia project were sufficiently deleterious to the project to have more than halfway to a long-term sanction. The process was halted because the suggestion was raised that you had the potential to become a valued member of the community and contributer to the project, if you could somehow be able to curb the behavior that, for better or for worse, raised the ire of a significant portion of the community. That would have been the purpose of mentorship. As I said to Isarig as well, it is a process by which you could learn to vent the inevitable frustrations and disappointments inherent in editing tendentious articles in such a way that the wikipedia policies relating to editing and behavior are upheld. If that starts with editing non-tendentious articles, so be it. The purpose of an article ban is not punitive, but protective of both the article and the editors involved.

I still am convinced that you need some time away from articles which are hot buttons for yourself and others, and time away from the editors together with whom the interactions have been overwhelmingly fractious. The articles you have specialized in are ones that inflame passions on all sides of the discussion, as they do on the ground and in the field of battle. It is these kinds of articles that require the most discretion and iron-clad adherence to process. Otherwise it degenerates into endless cycles of revert wars interspersed with periods of article lockdowns.

You have developed a reputation; Despite the fact that my weltanschauung in these articles differs vastly from yours, I will offer you a piece of unsolicited advice. If you wish to continue to contribute gainfully, you will need to shed the reputation you have garnered and rebuild the community's faith in you.

Back to brass tacks, what you do now is sort-of up to you, but the Damoclean specter of the CSN discussion remains, and does need to be addressed. Thank you. -- Avi 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I have many failings - but that my "style, and methods of interacting with other editors" are the problem is a brand new one. Difficult to be sure, but I'm not clear that either of those things has ever been raised before (certainly not as the subject of any move to silence me - but probably not in all the many personal allegations made against me either). Only once in 11 months has "my interaction with other editors" directly arisen. (I fully and completely apologised to that person, waiting until after the CSN ws closed, without needing anyone to ask or even suggest it was necessary/useful).

However, on the third point "your presence", I think you hit the nail on the head. There are many "Israel" named participators, they're not made the subject of harrassment for their name. Many of the people holding "their kind of views" (if I may describe them like that?) have also been hauled up (usually for real crimes, edit warring, reverting, incivility, reckless and repeated breaches of policy etc etc) before various disciplinary boards. However, I'm not seeing the people who "defend them" suffering immediate nasty personal attack - as is very clear happens to me at every turn.

I'm not being difficult about Mentoring, I rather like the idea and I publicly agreed to it (and you'll see I'm working far more closely with User:HG at the Battle of Jenin article than anyone else is doing[37]). I don't see HG (yet, anyway!) advising me to back off and stop editing any particular topic. (He did ask a pile of people to look at Battle of Jenin and strike out all personal attacks - I'm the only one to have attempted to comply - deleting 3 posts that were probably never objectionable[38][39]).

The problem here is that, as long as I can be kicked around in the fashion that has happened to me (and everyone who speaks up for me is guaranteed to get the same unpleasant treatment), mentoring by any editor in good standing (or indeed otherwise[40]) is impossible. HG would run a mile - he's already been accused of being my meatpuppet. (I'll not repeat what happened to my first "Mentor", nor what glee that provoked). I'm all in favour of teethful administrators. Take on and bully those people who cannot string two words together first (and are incapable of doing anything other than edit-war and bitch) and the whole project's atmosphere would improve enormously, with great benefit to the product. Carry on picking on logical, literate, cooperative people like me and you simply encourage editors who do not, and cannot, contribute anything useful. That's where the project's problems lie. I don't have to lower myself to naming anyone (let alone making personal attacks on them) because you know (or could very quickly find out) exactly who I'm refering to. PalestineRemembered 09:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Further to what I'm saying about an uncontrolled campaign of fraudulent accusations (started by a top admin with a completely baseless but never retracted allegation of Holocaust Denial), yet another well-regarded editor is now suffering this effect. The thoughtful and careful mediation that User:HG was attempting on Battle of Jenin has been deliberately stalled by 1) refusing to partake 2) defacing the mediation page and 3) personally attacking the mediator and me. Note that those doing this haven't even had the decency to stop editing the article. Some of their ways are being exposed at the very confusing new TalkPage opened here, but then these sections have come to conclusions before (eg over use of CAMERA and what should be in the lead) and those conclusions have never been implemented.

All of the above is a direct result of a culture of personal accusations that has been and is being encouraged against me (by, amongst other things, this nonsense). People must be very puzzled why User:HG (and everyone else who dares to deal with me in any kind of collegiate fashion) suffers these outrageous and personal attacks .... something about me must bring down the red mist on some people - can you guess what it is? One thing for sure, it's not due to any real or alleged misbehaviour on my part! PalestineRemembered 08:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'll respond to your notes on my Talk, etc, later today. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

HG and mentoring

PR, greetings. As you may know, I commented here about Jenin, which you mention above. For what it's worth, I wouldn't necessary "run a mile" away from the idea of mentoring you. I enjoy our repartee and your good humor in dealing with me. Plus, it's a fine challenge to develop a relationship with somebody with whom I likely have many substantive disagreements. We seem to be able to assume good faith with each other and we seem to be fairly straightforward with each other. That said, if you would like to explore the idea of me as a possible mentor, I probably would ask for some conditions or procedures that you might not like, though I believe that they'd benefit us in the long run. For instance, if only to make the process feasible in terms of my time, it would help if we agreed on ways to limit the scope or frequency of your edits. (I thought I had advised that you back off in some ways, but perhaps I spoke too obliquely.) Since you might find this frustrating, perhaps we'd set up a user page for me to review your various proposed edits (and you can always keep your proposed changes in an off-line document). As you say kindly above, you've been quite receptive to some of my suggestions, so maybe mentoring would work. But I tend to err as a micromanaging supervisor, so there is a risk you'd feel unduly constrained. Philosophically, too, as you probably know by now, I am very conservative about deploying official grievance procedures to raise concerns ("accusations") about user conduct. Given your current situation, though, perhaps you could live with my quirks. Let me know what you think. In any case, no hard feelings. Good luck. HG | Talk 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have no difficulty living with your quirks. I particularly like the idea of having a "share-page", because there are dozens of good, well referenced and relevant edits I'd like to make. I don't do them because there's no point in doing so unless I'm prepared to battle for weeks over it, making good new "contacts", only to see those people personally attacked and often driven off too. I should warn you though, I've been round this exact route very recently - not only will you suffer the kind of absurd personal attacks that you've already seen, the other tactic is to tell people lies about me. That's what happened here, where another potential mentor is trapped into accusing me of edit-warring, something I've never done. I'm afraid I let fly a bit on that occasion ..... PalestineRemembered 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. The warning is fair and I'll talk to Avi (or others) about handling any side-effects, but generally these should not be your worry. So, it sounds like you'd like me to propose some conditions/procedures for mentoring, is that right? If so, let's start by you posting me the diff that contains the decision requiring your mentorship. I'd like to read that. Meanwhile, I'll throw some ideas your way now. As soon as you find some condition of mine that you don't think you can stomach, and that I don't seem to adequately adjust or compromise, then we can call off this exploration, ok? Thanks. HG | Talk 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC) PS Ok, I think this is an adequate diff.[41]

Here are some questions:

1. Would you consider us trying mentorship on a renewable, short-term basis? For instance, maybe we agree to try it out for 3-5 days. Then we both renew it for another cycle.
2. Presumably, the mentoring would cover all edits of any type in Wikipedia. If so, then I would review (or have a prior option to review) all article and article-talk edits, and whatever you might want to write on various Wikipedia process pages (e.g., AfD, ArbCom, AN/I, etc). Plus, Talk pages of any users with whom you are conflicting. The only exception would be that, in my absence, you could respond to process pages in which your own misconduct is alleged. Ok, this would be tough. Hence the 3-5 days basis. Does this sound too broad?
3. As you might imagine, I may ask you to strikeout or delete certain statements you've made. This would be limited and kept reasonable, but you may not like it. How this so far? HG | Talk 19:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(copied) Well, it is my worry - I owed the person trapped on that occasion some quite serious favours over a long period ...... and yet he still fell for what he'd heard! What do I owe you? Here's the diff you asked for - remember what I told you, this occasion was the very first time accusations against me even came with any evidence. Many people clearly and genuinely found what I'd said offensive - but only because of the culture they came from, people from civilised nations don't give a toss. I don't know if I can make sense of your proposed ground-rules - do I have to run it past you first before I ask if someone has a COI? I can't see a problem with striking out anything you think is out of order. PalestineRemembered 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the level of mentoring oversight would depend on the type of edit. Let's say, for instance, you'd be encouraged to engage in exchanging messages on the Talk pages of your friends and allies. Likewise, I'm willing to assume that I can review a posteriori (after the fact) your substantive edits of articles that we agree are non-controversial. On the other hand, I am suggesting that you share with me in advance, and discuss with me as needed, your edits in more controversial or problematic settings. I suppose we should agree on the goals of mentorship -- such as improving collaborative interactions, anticipating and satisfying the objections of other editors, and strengthening the use and critique of reliable sources. I would expect that you'd spend more time preparing and patiently analyzing proposed edits, and less time making and arguing over edits. While I would try to be as gracious and as fair-minded as I can be, my conditions would be pretty tough, at least at the outset. This arrangement would mean that our goal is to modify some of your editing behaviors, which I gather is the point of the required mentorship. I'm not saying it would be easy for you -- indeed, I think it could be exasperating -- so that's why I suggest trying it out in short 3-5 day efforts. Take care. HG | Talk 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(copied) There are three major problems with what you're trying to achieve. One is that any "friend or ally" (or even exchanger of collegiate posts in between complete disagreemnt, like yourself) is going to be harrassed with accusations aimed at their integrity (or more serious attacks, such as sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, as you and others have discovered). Secondly, with illiteracy and edit-warring rife in some of the articles that most need attention, careful editing is often a complete waste of time. Good edits will be turned into garbage, even if they're not edit-warred out immediately. (I think I just caught one of the editors I'm thinking of demanding to be free to edit on topics they'd just told us they knew nothing about!).

And there's a third problem - because despite what you might think, I spend very little time arguing over edits (I refuse to edit-war, as I'm forever telling people). I put most of my effort into attempting to either act to WP:Policy or asking (demanding) people tell me what they think policy is. I find an article quoting "an historian" who says things such as :"Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." That is gross indeed on two unambiguous levels, making the guy utterly unsuitable to be used. Note, I've done nothing to interfere with the article, I'm only pointing it out in Talk, resulting in a small explosion of anger. (This "historian" also wrote a book called ""Israel Explores Deir Yassin Blood Libel, 1969" - I've no idea what's in there, but I think I can guess!). You were canvassed to go to the Battle of Jenin article in order to stop me pointing out that 'The minority view sources we're offered themselves tell us that their claims were ignored in the western media' - I wasn't editing, just pointing out something very obvious, and "demanding" the article be edited to the "Major View", not some trivial "Minor View". (Another editor has told me that "the world bought the Palestinian propaganda" on this subject - and blusters when I point out that the article most certainly doesn't match what he's just claimed to be "The World View"!).

In other words, each of your aims "improving collaborative interactions, anticipating and satisfying the objections of other editors, and strengthening the use and critique of reliable sources" is unobtainable. It strikes me that editors of good-will such as yourself don't much suffer from problems of the kind I get, so you imagine there must be something wrong with what I'm doing (even though nobody can put a finger on it with diffs in all the CSNs, ANI, etc etc). You recognise that I have information and some forms of "logic" behind what I seem to be trying to do, but you keep me at arms length because I'm having lots of problems that you manage to avoid. You believe you can "help", and I'm almost embarrassingly eager to accept ..... until you tell me what you see as the problems. It's then immediately obvious (to me, at least) that we'll not get anywhere.

However, I've said I'm agreeable, and I am. If you are open to a suggestion from me, it would be that you open a sandbox page (either your space or mine). I suggest this space has a top half (edits nearly ready to be entered into articles, waiting your approval or further suggestions) and a bottom half (issues with articles that are not ready to be dealt with as yet). Shall I voluntarily limit myself to 50 issues at any one time? PalestineRemembered 08:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. In terms of a mutual agreement about mentorship, is your suggestion (sandbox page) that you first write down your edits in the sandbox, perhaps revise and discuss them with me, and only implement them after my approval? If so, then at least we may be close to agreement on how the supervisory procedure could work. This means that if I do not approve an edit, you agree to not make the edit (at least during the mentorship period, however short or long). Ok? It sounds like it needs to cover edits anywhere, whether "friend or foe" users, whether article content, article talk, or WP: pages. Right? Let's revisit goals once (or if) we agree on this basic procedure. Thanks. HG | Talk 08:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For the goals or expected outcomes of mentorship, what is it that you would like to learn? This might be a combination of what the CSN requires and how you might sincerely like to improve. My 3 suggestions are based on my sense that the CSN focused partly on the use of sources and partly on your interactions w/other editors. If you are willing to do the required mentorship in good faith, then wouldn't this mean that you are agreeing to try to modify your conduct on Wikipedia in some way? (But pls first answer q's above about procedure!) HG | Talk 09:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sort of - but there clearly aren't problems with all my edits (it must be debatable whether there are real problems with any of them, otherwise the air would be blue with diffs). Worthwhile mentorship is about lifting the standard of those parts of my editing that have the potential for improving articles, not about preventing me from responding in off the cuff ways to people that I treat in a collegiate fashion. These off-the-cuff responses are the very things that persuaded you that cooperation between the two of us could be productive!

What do you want me to do, write edits, transfer them to the sand-box and enter "This space bagged by PR for the edit at [this link] - some material may be chit-chat intended to ease your discomfort at correspondence with an editor who appears to self-identify with a hugely unpopular and suffering minority"? (Please note - I'm not being awkward, but we are writing the manual for something that is not part of WP:Policy and never will be if we mess up).

I'm a bit disappointed that you've ignored my identification of three areas where "improvement" is meaningless, since they're problems that have nothing to do with me. I thought you put yourself forward to drain the swamp, not to muzzle the very most cooperative and friendly alligator! PalestineRemembered 09:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- with what you said about writing the edits into the sandbox, providing the link (so I know the point of intended insertion of the edit), and a heading like your quote (but less glib).

Well, it would help if you could evaluate yourself in a more critical and self-reflective way. Above, you had said the goals were unobtainable, not "meaningless." Anyway, you seem to ignore this key dynamic --> "lifting the standard" of your edits, for the sake of "improving articles," is thoroughly related to one's ability to engage in chit-chat i.e. Talk that other users will find collegial and constructive. It's not just what we say, it's how we say it, that makes for good collaboration. By the way, if I recall correctly, what persuaded me about cooperation is quite the opposite of what you've said above. I was faced with off-the-cuff comments that appeared inappropriate -- but once I assumed good faith and got into it in more depth with you, I found that you were much more reasonable and thoughtful than your off-the-cuff responses suggest. Sorry, maybe you just don't realize the effect of what you sometimes write. (And many WP users don't realize it about themselves, either!) This is partly why I would like to see you more sensitive in anticipating other folks' reactions. (The other part is about their reactions on your content/policy ideas.) I hope this is blunt yet useful, ok? HG | Talk 09:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've hinted before that some significant part of this is about culture-clash - all you've managed to do is persuade yourself that this is the *major* part of an otherwise unbelievably woolly "problem" that others are supposed to have identified. That's what you're saying now, and you're not seriously expecting me to re-edjicate my brain and change my native use of English to a non-standard version. If you don't understand what I say, but discover I'm talking sense (or at least, saying something logical) when I'm challenged and express myself again in bite-sized words, then that is your problem, not mine. (PR)

A communication problem isn't owned by only one side. Assuming both parties want to understand each other, doesn't a misfired communication result in a problem for both? HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over each of the other possibilities with you, and have credibly asserted that they're endemic problems - if I have problems with them, it's because any determined editor will have problems with them. (PR)

Which "possibilities" are you referring to here? There were my 3 numbered "questions", then your three major problems, then my 3 suggested goals or outcomes for mentoring.HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Think about it - you just embarked on two simultaneous projects. The first of these was welcomed by me with open arms and excellent cooperation, it was then torpedoed below the waterline by the most outrageous cries of "foul" aimed at yourself. The second of these projects involved putting my behaviour under a microscope, and coming up with near-conclusive evidence that, whatever my real faults, they're not the cause of anything even hinted at in the CSN. (PR)

As I've said before, the gripes against my intervention in Jenin were hardly "the most outrageous cries of foul" and barely merited a response. I've not been a victim. In any case, what project or effort of mine has been torpedoed? If you mean Jenin, my efforts haven't been torpedoed. Jaakobou picked up on the idea and some folks have identified issues for mediation. Some of their Talk has focused on such specific issues. I'd also note that there wasn't agreement to mediate before my suggestions, either. Regarding the second project (mentorship), I don't quite grok your intent. Are you saying that I am proposing to demonstrate (via "evidence") that the CSN misjudged you and focused on a false reading of your faults? HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words, your editing doesn't have the same kind of problems I have (at least partly) because you're not actually a "determined" editor, taking on real problems that can be identified. Your recipe for a congenial life involves taking the path of least resistance - and bullying a cooperative and thoughtful editor is 5x times easier than ironing POV out of articles. (There's yet another very serious problem described in the section immediately below this one, and it concerns the same article you planned to mediate. This is on top of all the problems I identified at your soap-box page, none of which have been touched). (PR)

You're criticizing me for not being "determined," in general? Ok, I cry foul! :) Anyway, for the umpteenth time, PR, I did not "plan to mediate" the Battle of Jenin. You have projected this onto me. HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you go back to your pay-masters and tell them that you don't understand this particular problem. I'll tell the same people you should have a pay-rise because of the skill and determination you've applied to this affair and the wisdom with which you've decided there is no problem to be found. PalestineRemembered 11:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, PR, you've sorta lost me on this last point. But perhaps I don't need to: Overall, it sounds as if you're saying that your difficulties are due primarily to a culture clash, not a bona fide problem ("woolly... others are supposed to have identified") that requires mentorship. In other words, you don't agree that the CSN has identified any problem(s) that you would like to be mentored on? Is that right? HG | Talk 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC) PS you can skip the interjected q's above, the main question is here at the end. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The cultural differences between my society and yours are huge, and we've just exposed another one. You apparently consider it perfectly proper to demand I confess to various (presumably serious but so far example-free) faults and answer questions until I slip up and apparently defy my CSN "In other words, you don't agree that the CSN has identified any problem(s)". (Very much like what happened at the CSN itself, in fact). It may be "due process" in your system (shades of Presidential impeachment), but it'd never pass for due process in civilised nations - where the accused must be told what he's charged with.

Having been tripped up once already, I'm not going to open my big mouth and tell you what problem(s) I agree that the CSN identified. That'd be what's called "a fishing exercise". This fish refuses to bite.

There are a host of serious problems, the ones I'm telling you about, the one(s) that have personally affected your participation, and the ones that others are telling you about. The CSN arose because I believed I had detected a serious problem in the editing of Battle of Jenin - the CSN proceeded as if Conflict of Interest was perfectly proper. This long discussion, in the context of this particular article, makes it look exactly as if the monstrously POV editing of this article is perfectly proper too.

I think you should open the "Mentoring" page we both want (and I think we agree with how it is to be used) and I'll get on with filling it up. PalestineRemembered 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Another reply on my Talk. Plus, how about this? User:HG/workshop/Mentoring Yes, it's a bit formalistic, but that's me and there's my draft for you. HG | Talk 17:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Posted a reply again. Regarding whether and how to mentor with a "P.S." note after your edits (rather than a prior screening by the mentor), see my comment here. Thanks for thinking about various ways to arrange the mentoring. HG | Talk 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to you on my talk regarding your edits to the mentoring subpage, thanks. HG | Talk 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I've gotta say, PR, can't remember the last time I so enjoyed talking with somebody even while we seem to talk past each other! Yes, I am glad you noticed what I wrote and you didn't defy the CSN. However, you don't quite say how you plan to comply either. I'm less sanguine than you that I should set up the mentoring page because "we agree with how it is to be used." I still are requesting guidance, and presumably buy-in from you, on what I would try to achieve as your mentor. After all, the CSN arrangement sounds like the kind of mandatory training that people get nowadays (e.g., due to driving violations). I really do expect you to open your mouth and tell me what you think I would be trying to mentor or train you in. Once we agree on the goal, and my various stringent conditions, then I'd like to run this by Avi and see if it's kind of arrangement he has in mind. (Do you know how long the mentoring is supposed to last?) Anyway, to be responsive to you, I'll set up the mentoring page with an intro, which we can then argue negotiate over. But I'm not agreeing to mentoring, yet. Sound ok? HG | Talk 16:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC) PS I will be out-of-touch from Wednesday pm to Sat night. If we agree before then, this could be our first trial period. Take care.

I'm very much inclined to reject your idea of being a Mentor over the coming weekend when you're away (and I'm not sure you've got your heart in it). Don't take it personally, I'm sure we'll work productively together in the future, but it's almost as if I'm my own worst enemy being so cooperative, and I'm asking to be trampled underfoot. Your mediation on Battle of Jenin could have been really useful (even though I recognise I'd probably still be quite unhappy with the result). Prove to me that you can make a good hand of that, let me see you operate "due process" (as has been most startlingly not present up until now) and I'm sure I'll consider taking you up on the other thing. PalestineRemembered 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your encouragement on Jenin, though I'm not sure that I'll do much more there. Also, I won't be away, just indisposed for Rosh Hashanah. Anyway, let me know if you change your mind. See ya. HG | Talk 20:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding whether and how to mentor with a "P.S." note after your edits (rather than a prior screening by the mentor), see my comment here. Thanks! HG | Talk 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see you just added potential edits onto the User:HG/workshop/Mentoring page. I find this confusing, since above you apparently decline the mentoring arrangement. Right? Placing edits for review would imply tacit acceptance of the conditions. So, please PR, only add potential edits on that page if you intend to follow all the guidelines there. If you reject or are dissatisfied with the proposed guidelines, please discuss them before placing edits for me to review. Thanks! HG | Talk 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Placing edits for review is simply an invitation for you (or perhaps others) to introduce factual confirmation or refutation of what I believe should be entered into articles. If you have any interest in or knowledge of this affair (and I'm not sure that you do?) you might remind me of any mistakes, alternatively you might just view the presentation and tell me whether it's readable or not. It might be that you've seen the same thing at your "Clarify Jenin" page, but then you'd not have wanted to express any opinion/add any material there. The presentation there is obviously based on other one, but it's stripped down considerably, in a day or two I'll look at it myself and figure whether the 'lite' version is the most useful. The work of improving the encyclopedia goes on whether or not other arrangements hold good. PalestineRemembered 22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PR, thanks for explaining why you added material there. As a matter of courtesy, since that user page is set up to follow the stated guidelines, I'd appreciate your removing the material from that page. Perhaps you can set up your own user page to prepare your edits and invite folks to review in advance. Sound good? Also, let me know where you've moved the material in case I take you up on the invitation. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, further explained this request per your q's, pls see my Talk. Now I see you left another note. That's a thoughtful approach, ask me in my Talk about a specific situation. Not sure if I have time today, but I do appreciate the gesture. Ciao. HG | Talk 12:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Dear PR, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Kyaa the Catlord 04:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

UN and other death toll reports

as the person who raised concerns regarding "systematically mis-stated" death tolls and stated the issue of:

UN report is quoted as saying "52 dead in total" when it actually says "at least 52"^[42]

you're expected to leave a serious comment on this subsection or delete the issue from your list of concern. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wasting still more time on that TalkPage when several matters have been decided there and the changes to comply with decisions have not been made, in fact they've continued to be edit-warred out of the article (eg the atrocious use of CAMERA references, the decision on the lead).

Furthermore there is a mediation on that Battle of Jenin article (and it was not me that asked for this mediator, despite the nasty personal allegations made, it was Steve, Sm8900). It's time you and others presented your evidence on the page set up for that purpose, and removed the material placed there to deface it. There has been serious anti-policy game playing going on at this article for months now - and further wriggling is only making it more and more obvious.

PS - I don't know what it is that Eleland says you've re-factored yet again, but I can tell you that I'm sick of that kind of disruptive behaviour and have recentlyi reported another user in ArbCom evidence for it. PalestineRemembered 18:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

you canfind the new topic here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

responce to your note on my talk page

I don’t think it is possible to make such a judgement based on a single page. You are making an effort to follow WP:CITE and WP:RS but the one sidedness suggests you need to consider Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. One condition of my taking the role of mentorship is that as far as possible past events on Wikipedia are left in the past. Is this acceptable.Geni 00:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Hussam_Abdo#The_YouTube_video

Non english sources are allowed on wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for why this has to be the case) however translation issues being what they are I would suggest choseing some random people from Category:User_he-N to provide an opinion on the translation. At the same time it should be made very clear that what the source is so the phraseing should be along the lines of "TV station X reported that whatever".Genisock2 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want something closer to policy then see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_you_add_content. For translations as I said try asking a few people in Category:User he-N. As for the links to terrorism-info.org.il I doubt they pass WP:RS given the content of this.Geni 19:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Zee problem is that the english translations are not original and are thus no more valid than any we do ourselves.Geni 21:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the article getting deleted through AFD. Generaly it is not a good idea to start editing an article with internal wikipedia conflicts in mind.Geni 22:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea I don't do archiveing.Geni 14:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes 1948 exodus

Thx for your contribution to this article. Actually I think this item is not agreed upon by historians:

Before the first truce (July 1948) mass flights were mainly the result of the war, both offensives of the Israeli army and the action of irregulars. Around half of the total number of refugees left in this period.

Many historians do think large parts of the early exodus were premeditated.

--JaapBoBo 10:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't react so cynical. I mean exactly what I say: the Zionists expulsed Arabs already before July '48. To call it 'result of the war' is a heavy understatement.

Anyway, if I change it the way I'd like I fear somebody will delete that or object to that, and I'm not in the mood to hassle about this particular sentence rigth now.

--JaapBoBo 22:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bitten off more than you can chew?

I don't know about the bulldozer driver bit but in line with articles such as Indian Rebellion of 1857 popular alturnative names should be mentioned in the opening.Geni 21:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who gush-shalom.org are so I can't really comment. Idealy the name should be the two english names (don't try and cover geographical area without a cite so drop first world and middle east claim) and the arabic and hebrew names.Geni 22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is generaly useful to know what those involved in conflicts call the thing. Anyway that is a long term aim not something we need worry about in the short term.Geni 22:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Discuss on article Talk

I'm baffled why you say you don't want a regular record of the estimates of deaths in Battle of Jenin article. If we're to move away from the current outrageous claim of there being just 52 Palestinian deaths, then we have to document the fact that nothing is very well documented, but the total death toll is clearly much higher than some sources wish us to believe.

You'll note that my reference to the name "Jenin Massacre" has been stripped out (despite the fact that the Hated Google Test says it's 3 times more popular than our current title) and the interview with the bulldozer driver has also been removed (calling it OR!). All these excisions do not speak well for a policy of documenting this incident properly. PalestineRemembered 21:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR. You just sent me the following a message, above. Why don't you move these questions/comments to appropriate sections of the article's Talk page, ok? Frankly, it's disturbing to see various people wrangling over 'massacre' language (and article name) at the same time a core group of you is trying to work things out on the Talk page. I don't know who started it, or who gets the last word, but it ain't pretty. Your second paragraph can go under Round III on massacre (or elsewhere?). Your first paragraph, above, seems to be responding to something I wrote. Actually, I don't know where I might have said or implied that I "don't want a regular record of the estimates of deaths" -- so place your comment under whatever you are concerned that I said (maybe quote me there, too). Thanks. HG | Talk 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Revised my wording, I realize the "edit war" has a worse meaning in Wikipedia, sorry. Take care. HG | Talk 17:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Do a table on RS

Seeing the success of Eleland's tabulation of the death estimates at Battle of Jenin, I'm wondering if we couldn't do the same thing for the RSs. I think we could quickly discern which of the various sources available we should be using. I'm confident we'd want to exclude some of them because they don't come across as reliable, either by their language, their adherence to good information, or what others say about them. What do you think? PalestineRemembered 22:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting idea. But I'm a bit confused. You'd like to list RS's in reference to what topic or question? If you want one for Jenin in general, that seems rather vague and a tall order, no? Ciao. HG | Talk 00:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Qibya details

Tahnk you for the info !
Would you have the other ones ? From the beginning of the chapter, when he describes the "context" ? Regards, Alithien 08:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Karsh?

PR: You led us to a statement from Karsh: "[Morris] argues that lack of an official policy made little difference, since "thinking about the possibilities of transfer in the 1930s and 1940s had prepared and conditioned hearts and minds for its implementation in the course of 1948." Morris cites no evidence to support this claim nor could he, for there was never any Zionist attempt to inculcate the "transfer" idea in the hearts and minds of Jews. He could find no evidence of any press campaign, radio broadcasts, public rallies, or political gatherings, for none existed."[5]

That sure doesn't match what Morris claims elsewhere - eg "Righteous Victims" p143. David Ben-Gurion, August 7th 1937, address the 20th Zionist Congress in Zurich. Text from CZA S5-1543, original texts of the speeches: "We must look carefully at the question of whether transfer is possible, necessary, moral and useful. We do not want to dispossess, [but] transfer of populations occured before now, in the [Jezreel] Valley, in the Sharon [that is, the coastal plain] and in other places. You are no doubt aware of the JNF's activities in this regard. Now a transfer of completely different scope will have to be carried out. In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transfering the Arab fellahin ...... it is important that this plan comes from the commission and not from us".

Which of these can be right - or is Karsh guilty of trickery, ignoring these statements because they're in front of a "private" audience? There are other statements concerning seizing the land from the natives, going right back to 1881/82. PalestineRemembered 07:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction here. Transfer was not publicly advocated by the Zionists, but it was discussed and supported in closed meetings.

Karsh probably doesn't lie, because then people wouldn't take him serious any more (in science circles), but he does present things with a big bias.

--JaapBoBo 19:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ..... when Karsh says "never any Zionist attempt to inculcate the "transfer" idea in the hearts and minds of Jews" it sounds to me like a pretty cynical play on words. If they didn't "inculcate the idea of transfer" then it was only because the idea of transfer was already deeply inculcated. PalestineRemembered 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. In fact Finkelstein describes just that in the first chapter of 'image and reality of the israel-palestine conflict'. Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents. --JaapBoBo 19:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

note

you already know that this edit is inappropriate.^[43]

please avoid such playful adjustments in the future as they are not contributing to the conversation.

p.s. on the issue, we can do quite a lot of research and smear all the sources in the article, however, that is not common practice on wikipedia unless you have a direct article criticizing his statements regarding the event. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

p.p.s. congrats on the new sig, it's an improvement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please check these edits

First edit fine. Second it is generaly not a good idea to chnage section titles on tlak pages.Geni 13:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Generaly best not to revert edits to talk pages and if you really feel the need to Summery is best limited to something along the lines of "rming comments".Geni 16:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your email

Thank you for this. I check this and comment.
But I don't feel the strength of editing an article in English yet; particularly in the context of the disagreements between Nishidani and I.
Kind Regards, Alithien 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

ADL

Sorry, I don't know what ADL means. According to Wikipedia it is the Arabic word for justice. Rather ironic, because from you I get the impression that it's some Jewish pressure group in the USA???

From Finkelstein I only read the first three chapters of 'Myth ...', but, his intellect is very impressing. I like his writing. And I found out he's totally right about Morris. He says in 'Birth ...' Morris's conclusions are skewed compared to the evidence he gives, and above that he blurs conclusions that are bad for Israel. In Birth Revisited I found this:

• On page 65 Morris states 'Strategically speaking the period December 1947 - March 1948 was marked by Arab initiatives and attacks and Jewish defensiveness increasingly punctuated by Jewish reprisals'. On the next page he states 'At the same time, the IZL and LHI [Irgun and Lehi], acting independently, beginning already in early December 1947, reverted to their 1937-1939 strategy of placing bombs in crowded markets and bus stops. The Arabs retaliated by exploding bombs of their own in Jewish population centres in February and March ...'. As to who started the attacks and who retaliated the second citation, specifying facts, asserts the opposite of the first citation, specifying a conclusion.

Nice he?

--JaapBoBo 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

beurk.

The first attacks where sniping from Arabs but it really doesn't mind.

Like when Pearlman compares Zertal (who tries to understand) and Finkelstein (who counts points), there are historians and propagandits, editors and pov-pushers, ... Alithien 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel and the United Nations

Hello PR, you showed interest last week about my rewrite of the article Israel and the United Nations. I am doing major modifications lately, and also moving the page to a new title, Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. Have a look! Emmanuelm 13:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES

I would suggest staying well away from this. Even I'm not crazy enough to get seriously involved. As for Deir Yassin massacre disscuss on talk page.Geni 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

battle of jenin

Per this do not remove refs.Genisock2 22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake. There are big problems with using that PR plug ahead of all the real investigations, but it was still referenced an astonishing 20 times even after my error. I can't delete a template (or I don't think I can) - have I accidentally rubbed up against a red-line? PR^talk 23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Estimates of casualties of Battle of Jenin

This really does not strike me as a good idea there are better ways to present the information.Genisock2 22:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Useing it to in effect make massive undebated changes to the article is not acceptable.Geni 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

adding content without ref

Please don't. For example here. Google search suggest the guy was anti-zionist so you had better have some very good refs to back the claim that he was pro.Geni 23:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple mistake, I confused Glubb with Wingate (famous for the Chindit Campaign against the Japanese - he'd earlier 1939 been sacked from Palestine by the British for siding with the Zionists in direct opposition to British policy).

This mistake of mine (possibly the first I've made in a year and several thousand edits?) was reverted and I have coweringly apologised to the person who spotted it. Shame, because the rest of my edit is good (more detail if you want it) - but I'm much too frightened to try and improve the article now I've slipped up once.

Presently, you will start to wonder why someone already so intimidated needs watching, and why such a trivial allegation (so easily and quickly sorted and closed over 36 hours ago) was ever passed to you. If you were to examine my record in depth, you'd see I've persistently suffered really nasty and aggressive accusations over references (refs in particular, though many other things too). And yet, I'm exceptionally good and careful about references, and have been so right from my first days in the project. In an attempt to justify these allegations, all my contributions have been (and are) exhaustively and aggressively scrutinised and challenged - see my highly credible rebuttal of that particular set of 3.

That set of 3 are only the 2nd documented charge of abusing references that's ever been made against me, coming after 10 months of my participation. (The first documented charge was utterly false, as proved in great detail, though I was virtually blocked for 6 weeks over it, and forced to send a photograph of myself with the book in question to a neutral party). The editor in this second case can only find three "questionable" uses of references by me - and to do that, he's had to go right back to the beginning of my participation (that's where the first two edits come from). Even back when I was a newby, my edits were good, containing highly credible, "unsurprising" and relevant information. The references I used in those two early cases should be perfectly adequate to purpose (and likely RS to policy even for much more "surprising" claims). The third reference *is* RS, since it's a link to a satellite photograph (from a research source we should probably be using a lot, but mysteriously upsets some editors, perhaps because of the ethnicity of those who run it).

These persistent claims that "PR cheats over references" are not only untrue, they're often from people who really do insert unsuitable references. This one (Glubb/Wingate) probably comes from people who have successfully edit-warred the reference "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference" into the article Battle of Jenin. That very article from CAMERA contains such material as "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'", so it's completely unsuitable to be used in the encyclopedia anyway (and would be utterly unacceptable due to separate accusations that it practises serious distortion, amounting to lies). The same people who successfully edit-warred over that nasty link then try and make out that my three good sources (one was a big group of US service men, one a big group of Israeli service-men and one a link to a photograph) have no place in the enyclopedia? How do they have the brass neck to do this? May I use a Hebrew word for their boldness, or will that lead immediately to even nastier accusations?

I'm very pleased to have you as my "Mentor" - after all, one day I might make a really serious mistake (eg use the word "chutzpah", thereby causing immense offense) and have to grovel to you to be allowed to stay on board. But you'll not find a lot of meat in the reports you're being peppered with at the moment. PR^talk 09:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

another edit

In this case do you have acess to the ref being used?Geni 00:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Which reference? Everyone the slightest bit interested knows that Kiryat Gat was built in the "Faluja pocket" and al-Faluja was "emptied" not "abandoned", exactly as I've said. I have the reference I used (Morris), though there is no particular reason I should have, this story is well known and easily found on the web. The article had been stable until there was a puzzling attempt to exclude the details of this atrocity (these details particularily valuable, because they're the most detailed international eye-witness accounts of the Nakba that we have). See this, it's clear that nobody doubts my claim it happened as described. And nobody seriously doubts that Kiryat Gat is the same place as Faluja/Iraq al-Manshiyya, (though Kiryat Gat was actually built on the less famous second of these villages and the satellite picture shows that some of the ruins of Faluja have not yet been covered by Kiryat Gat). There is very aggressive partisanship going on in this article, as in so many others - but the aggression does not come from me - as both these examples prove! PR^talk 09:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

notice

in your recent edit you've mass reverted all the issues that don't relate either to the POV tag or to the "also known as Jenin Massacre" issue.

(i.e. (1) "three", (2) "prompted"+"IDF" and (3) "at least")

considering our prolonging history and my belief that you are more than aware to what's going on with the page - i request you fix this issue promptly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because they're nonsense.

• "Three" is consensus (three editors in favour of editing to policy, yourself against).
• "Prompted by" is opposed by native English speakers, as has been made clear to you.
• "at least" has got to be in there, otherwise we're publishing a flat-out lie - as you well know. The perpetrators are the *only* people who claim the death toll was 52 in total (other than a few reports apparently deliberately misled by the IDF PR dept falsely telling them what the UN report was going to say). PR^talk 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

1. wikipedia is not a democracy or a soapbox, it matters not that three editors are in favor of the number three when the information on talk indicates it should not be used. (and these editors are clearly avoiding proper discussion)
2. your claim in regards to the prompted by is supposedly "roundly rejected on talk", according to eleland, however, no such indication has been supplied and you've seemed to have ignored the IDF issue... "i wonder why".
3. you can discuss the at least issue on talk rather than make a fairly blatant mass revert.
4. please correct the issue promptly and participate properly on the discussion.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I note your understanding of consensus, it might be interesting to compare your understanding with WP:POLICY.

I note your reluctance to edit to what the source actually says.

Everyone notes your difficulties with wording and language.

The "52 deaths" has been extensively discussed - that figure comes from the perpetrators (who lied to the world media that it was going to be the one in the UN report, when it was not). How many times do I have to quote you what is actually in the UN report, is in the Amnesty report, is in the HRW report, is in the Jenin Inquiry report and is in the RS's?

I do participate in discussion - though it's questionable why I should, when you're systematically tampering with it over our protests. PR^talk 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm aware that you're (1) avoiding the issues, and (2) ranting on my page, linking to a failed ANI attempt against me.

please, if you have further issues, i suggest you follow them up properly rather than harass me aimlessly with them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You went to my TalkPage with your nonsense, you mess with my Talk contributions to Battle of Jenin, but it's me harrassing you ..... hmmmm ..... weren't you blocked for harrassment of people on their TalkPages not long ago? PR^talk 14:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) i belive i've noted to you around 10 times already that this statement of yours is innacurate and false. (2) this does not in any way justify your mass revert. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Which part is false? That you harrassed two admins, were taken to AN/I and blocked for it? Two more admins took up the case, letting you off with these warnings "If Jaakobou is promising to mend his ways and only crap in the litter box in future (metaphorically speaking...) I think he should be given the chance to prove his sincerity." and "The important thing is to see a change in behaviour and it is clear now that Jaakoubou is apologizing, explaining and promising not to do so in the future".

Question for you - have you or have you not carried out extensive harrassment of people on their TalkPages since you were handed those warnings in April?

And that particular case of harrassment on TalkPages only exploded because you were simultaneously harrassing two other editors, including publishing the personal details of one of them, see here and here. PR^talk 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i told you already that you are misreading into a complex issue that you were not involved in. try to assume good faith and please stop mentioning this fairly old clash that indicates nothing regarding this content dispute (and your improper mass revert). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to PR and Jaakobou

<sigh> You two really can't help yourselves, can you? Suggestion to you both. PR has agreed to being mentored and, to the best of my knowledge, has a mentor. Why not use that mentor? Jaakobou - if you have a problem with PR's edits, please in the first place discuss them with PR's mentor. If you're unsatisfied, go to a forum for mediation or to request a formal ticking off. All you'll find here is an argument. PR - if you're going to make contentious edits, especially direct reverts etc of Jaakobou's edits, please use your mentoring workshop page first.

You should both remember that none of your edits, no matter how radically they alter an article will bring back to life one victim of violence. Wikipedia's not a battleground... there's enough real life conflict out there in the bad real world. Yours hopefully... --Dweller 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear to all fair-minded contributors that some of the treatment you've had here has been unjust. However, you can to a degree help avoid bringing it on your onself... <smiles ruefully> I think your decision regarding your signature was a good one, btw. --Dweller 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC - NPOV title

you're invited to comment here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman

Dear PR, I'd like to get Finkelstein in first. But I agree with you that Schechman should not be used. --JaapBoBo 15:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

www.jewsagainstzionism.com

I can understand wanting to link to a personal account but a less ah contiversal site would be preferable.Geni 00:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The rightness or otherwise of their POV isn't that important. They are in a fairly small minority thus it is best to avoid bringing them up in general articles.Geni 23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Again it doesn't matter JAZ are an extream minority view. And thus should not be brought up outside their own article. If there are other accounts link to them.Geni 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

At the present time they are an extream minority which is about all we care about.Geni 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm yet to meet a relgious group that didn't think itself the original version of X which everyone else had corrupted but no matter. There are multiple eyewitnesses yes? Someone else must have reports from some of them perhaps "Between Jerusalem and Hebron : Jewish settlements in the pre-state period" by Yosef Kats.Geni 21:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC - NPOV title

Might want to stay more focused here. bring up the translation issue not good.Geni 23:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

policemen

Why did you remove mention of policemen [44]?Genisock2 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

your comment is requested on the talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Dear PR.Looks like I'll have to engage in a long campaign over para.1 at 29 Hebron massacre. I'll never master the calculations of the 3rr rule (24 hours, what constitutes a revert) but I know that is part of Jaacobou's strategy. Could you be so kind as to glance at the last 24 hours and see what our respective statuses are with regard to that rule? I hate requesting this. I think I know how to write encyclopedia articles, but I'll never master these Wiki intricacies. On second thoughts, forget about it. I'll wait a day and do the usual 2 reverts, ever 24 hours, for the next 10 years, until someone steps in and makes J provide the translation required of him.Nishidani 19:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to pace myself! My pacemaker looks after that. You'd be surprised how little time I devote to this stuff. I just type fast, as one can tell from the slovenly grammar.:>)Nishidani 21:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked that Jaakobou or anyone else find and utilize the Sefer haHebron or Book of Hebron, because it does contain, apparently many documents and oral records of the events of 1929. Now this is not by any means an historical work, and I prefer Benny Morris, Segev, Wasserstein and many others who have read it, and then built their historian's narratives, excluding what they take as partial. I can't make a judgement on the book, because I can't read it. I don't trust Jaacobou to use it honestly, but he is entitled to refer to it if he provides the other editors with a competently precise translation of the specific details bearing on this point

(As one knows, the British took administrative measures against troops who broke discipline and disobeyed orders, Cafferata shot one he found slaughtering a Jew, and would have had no problem with ridding his force, by court-martial or whatever sanctions were available to him to impose, of murderous elements. Since these measures, as far as I can ascertain, weren't taken against other members of the Hebronite Arab force, I presume the Hebronite witnesses's testimonies were, if reported to the authorities, dismissed. But this is speculative. In any case, one should never disallow dissentient voices, esp. in history, where so much falls through the nets cast by the best students). I'll get the Kaplan reference in in due course. It only confirms what at least 5 other Jewish sources, people who lived in Hebron at the time, say independently. Jaakobou just hates the idea that a pious Jew can be anti-Zionist, and respectful of Arabs, despite the fact that it was not uncommon. Regards Nishidani 21:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood

My understanding is that Youtube links were discouraged in the past, although it's possible that they've become more accepted in recent months. Knowing how this place works, I strongly doubt there's any agreed-upon policy on the matter. CJCurrie 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh

Hello PR, as you know, earlier I supported British Isles being inserted on that article, then I accepted British-Irish Isles (thus destroying my credibiltiy at that article, no doubt). It's apparent the article's underlying dispute is this - Consensus (ie British Isles) -VS- Wikipedia isn't a democracy (ie. no British Isles). Regrettably, the next step to avoiding 'future edit wars' over the BI inclusion/exclusion topic, might be blocking editors. GoodDay 17:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Left similar message at Sony's page. GoodDay 17:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed how well people are handling this "dispute" (for all the fact it's completely artificial, as far as I can tell). That's why I'm not going to do anything unilateral. How many other articles are affected by this strange disagreement? PR^talk 18:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I left another message at Sony's page. Giving recommendations on how to lower the tempers at talk: Lough Neagh, a beginning to ending the stalemate there. Please take a look. GoodDay 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat

The name the subject uses is not normaly a reason to use that name as the title of a section.Geni 03:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

See here. PR^talk 07:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for you

Sabakh el nur.

I have posted a question for you on the last discussion item of Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I hope that you will answer it. Screen stalker 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Administration Noticeboard

An AN/I case has been opened in your name, I hope for you will have good explanations to the evidence proveded. --Gilisa 14:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi PalestineRemembered, I saw the website jewsagainstzionism.com mentioned in the AN/I above, and that you apparently are using it as a source somewhere. I haven't scoured your edits to see where this was used, but please note that this particular website is not a reliable source. It is registered anonymously and cannot be verified. People commonly seem to confuse the website with jewsnotzionists.com which is verifiably registered to Neturei Karta. See the discussion at Talk:Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation) for more information. If you are indeed using this website as a source, please take care to find other reliable sources instead. Best, --MPerel 04:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Neturei Karta group under Rabbi Weiss posts exactly the same interview at chttp://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/KaplanInterview.cfm. I gather from the deleted Talk:Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation) that this is an acceptable source. If so, the same information can be reliably sourced to Rabbi Weiss's site.Nishidani 09:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Since nkusa.org is verifiably an official site of Neturei Karta, then it's a reliable source as far as sourcing the views of Neturei Karta, or at least as a reference of one perspective of religious antizionist Jews. What is the context where this reference is used? --MPerel 10:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:MPerel. The original text gave a dramatic scenario, culled from a selective paraphrasing of Tom Segev's account of the massacre, that highlighted a period some several years before the 1929 massacre, in which Jews in Hebron were subject to taunting, and harassment. A formal complain was laid before the British authorities. The text then jumped to 1929. There was, I thought, a need to note that most contemporary sources I am familiar with, even from survivors who changed their view (understandably) about Arab attitudes,attest to a general atmosphere of good, amicable relations between Hebron's traditional Jewish community and the Arabs. PR gave the Kaplan testimony, and it was rejected on formal grounds (the Jewsagainst zionism site under examination). I noted that the Jewish Virtual Encyclopedia account by Shira Schoenbaum confirmed the substance of Kaplan's remarks (and I have several other contemporary sources which say the same).

I intervened because Jaakobou keeps showcasing tensions, denying common historical details over the massacre (59 buried, of which 58 slaughtered: one died of heart attack, then several others died of wounds over the subsequent weeks, perhaps irrelevant detail but it does mean that, since two weren't slaughtered but died of heart attacks, you cannot technically say 67 were slaughtered: 64-65 were (makes no difference to the horror, of course). You must say something along the lines, 'a massacre in which 67 died, 64-65 directly as a result of slaughtering assaults by the Arab mob'). Jaakobou in the thread seemns to admit this may be true, now that I have provided the evidence, but refuses to change the syntax on this minor point. All of this is particularly delicate because anything to do with Hebron touches directly on well-represented Hebron settler interests, which seem to trouble the neutrality of the article. For example, the intro.mentions the seizure of Jewish property, which was only taken back after 67. True, but that is a very complex issue, since after 67 much more than Jewish property has been 'taken back'. Indeed one of the Arab families who, with neighbourly charity, risked their lives to save many Jews by protecting them in their house, El Zeitoun's family, lost their property to the Ashkenazi settlers, who have turned it into a kindergarten. Jaakobou in short seems to support any text which provides a rhetorical and onesided presentation justifying the present position on Hebron maintained by Kiryat Arab settlers, who run what is a hate site, where Jaakobou sources some material (itself an historical document of worth, but to be used with great care), where all Arabs are defined as 'terrorists'. Hence the fuss. Regards Nishidani 10:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you that was a very helpful summary. As I have time, I'll try to throw in my two cents on the applicable article(s). --MPerel 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Freedom" of the BBC

I don't know who gave you the right to intrude on my talk page with soapboxing, but, in response to your unsolicited message, I assure you that, contrary to your beliefs, the BBC is not free. It is as "free" as any Russian television channel, that is, it is financed by the Blair-Brown administration and obsequiously reflects their POV. "He who pays the piper calls the tune." The same increasingly applies to the US, whose media are controlled by three to five influence groups, such as the Murdoch conglomerate. As long as major media outlets are effectively controlled by the government/Murdoch duopoly, there will be no freedom of speech as I see it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with the above comment, you should feel more than free to use the BBC as a source, it is likely one of the most respected news sources in the world. If it was biased by the government of the time, we would have seen the BBC take hard anti-argentine lines in 1982, anti-Iraqi lines and pro-American lines in 2003, which we didn't....and we would likely not see the fair/palestinian biased (depending on who you ask) reporting on Israel and the Palestine cafuffle. Narson 11:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean Dr David Kelly, Andrew Gilligan (and Greg Dyke) and the Hutton Report. In my opinion the whole Kelly/Hutton affair was very embaressing, but in a twisted way proved the independence of the BBC. It also hasn't affected the quality of the BBC's attacks on the government (And on itself. It was very bizzare to watch the BBC attack itself over its conduct over David Kelly on things like Newsnight). If Lord Hutton is to be believed then Kelly did not say some of the things Gilligan attributed to him (Oddly, this would mean he 'sexed up' his report, though, thats journalism for you). Unfortunatly the government decided to seize upon this as a campaign. Sadly I think this story owes more to Dr Kelly's timidity combined with his discontent with the ludicrous dossier. (The decision to fire the people was for totally failing to apply any editorial guidelines, whether thats justified or not is a bit odd). Something I think has happened at several commercial news services (The chief takes the rap for some reporters loose leash). The freedom to cock things up is a sort of freedom in and of itself. Narson 12:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

review of your recent actions and recomendations

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Statement_by_Geni.Geni 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Jenin

PR, thanks for your comment. I replied on the Talk page. But I wanted to say something to you via talk -- if only as an illustration of how some matters should be handled outside the article Talk pages. As you can see from my reply, I think your own comment went into a tangent about allegations etc., and it ends up being off-topic and, if you don't mind my being frank, potentially disruptive and diversionary. Therefore, I strongly prefer that you strike out or delete what you wrote after that helpful 1st sentence, maybe replacing it with your thoughts about the other questions posed. Thanks very much. We haven't chatted much for a while, but obviously we've seen each other in different settings. Good luck with everything. HG | Talk 18:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Gaza (2007)

Perhaps by accident, but you blanked most if not all of Talk:Battle of Gaza (2007) so I reverted it. -WarthogDemon 06:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, second time this has happened to me in the last few weeks, the first time I caught it and self-reverted. I think you must be a bot, because I'd seen what was going on and not had long enough even to realise what had happened. PR^talk 06:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope I'm not a bot. I actually thought that was an intentional blanking so that was also bad faith on my part. Sorry about that. Cheers! :) -WarthogDemon 06:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No probs. I wonder if anyone else is having this problem, the new entry goes in but takes out the whole of the rest of the page (I think the first one concerned an article, not Talk). PR^talk 06:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to AN/I

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord 12:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR, put me under a different heading if you wish. Anyway, please read my request at the AN/I [45]. Thanks, best wishes, HG | Talk 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I replied in detail there. Listen, you may not like what you read, but I'm trying to be honest and helpful to you. Ciao, HG | Talk 01:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A note

First: forgive my frankness. I get the impression that you see me as an ally, which is flattering. So please take this as a friendly critique.

You may already have seen HG's advice on how to proceed in the current mess. I suggest you go back and read it again, five or six times. It's something I've been wanting to tell you for a while, but I couldn't find the words. I think the reason why some people want to ban you is not because of your mistakes, but because of all the things you've done right. You've striven mightily for neutrality and accuracy in many articles. But it's your mistakes that will get you banned. Your personal style tends towards the accusatory, and your desire to redress old user-conduct grievances comes off as quixotic at best. Just rein yourself in a little. When a small-minded fool says something stupid, pretend that you didn't understand him and ask for clarification. When a propagandist weaves together a series of tenuous conjectures, patiently and politely unravel them, and compliment him on the luster and rarity of the thread. I'm slowly learning this philosophy myself, and it's damned hard to stick to. But it's the only way to survive here. As you once told me privately, "Take care, play this for the long term!" <eleland/talkedits> 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, blanking out comments by you and/or others on the AN/I is not helpful to your cause and is considered vandalism. I changed those edits back. If you wish to leave Wikipedia, that is up to you, but doing that edit will make some wish the leave was longer. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

trolling

obviously, the issue is still not resolved - PR has just trolled around me yet again (a wikiquette not involving him).

i re-iterate my request for a topic ban until the rules are set by his mentoring process. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Topic ban from which articles? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Or my quirky idea: confine the disputatious editor(s) to quarters. E.g., he/they aren't to edit elsewhere until they come to a civil, mutual understanding on one article, e.g. Hebron or Jenin. Maybe call this an "exile" to a single island, as was done for that other disputatious character. In good humor, yet seriously, HG | Talk 13:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

in general, israel-arab related issues are where i feel he's been letting his POV become a source of disruption both on talk and on the articles themselves. POV is natural, but where content dispute turns into flat out trolling... perhaps a short term ban (few hours) also to illustrate that his harassment of me is unacceptable? i'd be happy to see other reasonable suggestions also, i'm well aware i have a conflict of interest here (but i don't think i went to far in my suggestions). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I recently vowed not to comment on certain behaviors and the considerable damage I believe they cause to the operation of the project.

But I'm sure people will forgive me for reminding them that two admins issued these warnings about behavior on other people's TalkPages: "If Jaakobou is promising to mend his ways and only crap in the litter box in future (metaphorically speaking...) I think he should be given the chance to prove his sincerity." and "The important thing is to see a change in behaviour and it is clear now that Jaakoubou is apologizing, explaining and promising not to do so in the future".

It's possible I've refered to these warnings several times already - but then they've been completely ignored and the promises made have now been breached an inordinate number of times. I wonder what it will take to put a stop to this nonsense? PR^talk 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

note - this very issue was raised on the ANI as a complaint. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

removing sources (again)

per this edit - removing the Qadoura Mousa statement and (again) pushing the agenda that a massacre may have happened and calls it "factual errors".
see also: [46] and [47]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Still not learnt to crap in the cat-litter then? You want to use a hate-source and a newspaper owned by a cult (quoting a reporter known to have falsified anti-Muslim material). And denying there was a massacre, when Amnesty specifically details one. It's called WP:POLICY, Jaakobou, I'm sure you'll get the hang of it eventually. PR^talk 06:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And it is comments like that above is what people do not like on Wikipedia. Make more of these kind of comments and you could be issued a block by me. Jaakobou and others, do not egg the user on. You will also find a block issue by me if I find out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA

Constantly screaming that it is a hate source is not helpful. It is clearly partisan and clearly has an agenda, that in mind, the article you are removing is sourced in itself (Sourcing both Halpin's comment and the statistics plus other quotes) and is relevent to the article. I think having only a single source of criticism in the article would add the misconception that that group is widely accepted. We also currently have unsourced praise for the group on the page, which I would say is a more urgent correction needed than dealing with CAMERA. Narson 10:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

PR, hope you have tolerance for my periodic interjections, the above complaint is not unlike concerns about how you characterized Schechtman (in Causes 1948) as a hate source (and like a Holocaust denier). Maybe, PR, you could find a more nuanced or modulated vocabulary to make your critique of such sources. For instance, Narson suggests terms like partisan. How about a "highly antagonistic" or "vituperative" POV? I bet the sesquipedalian Nishidani can advise you! Such wording might be enough to persuade folks to avoid, or at least deprecate, the sources, without yourself antagonizing folks vituperatively. If you catch my drift. ;-) HG | Talk 12:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC) (PS My comment should not be interpreted as actually supporting PR's view, as I think he realizes.)

Jenin

Hi PR. I noticed your latest comment at Talk:Battle of Jenin.here's the diff. I think we deal with your concern rather well. You seem to be arguing about 2 sides, and we've moved on to a middle ground. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to retract (undo) your comment. After you undo, look over the thread again, and if you feel you still have a concern, maybe you could raise it with somebody you feel is basically on your side (e.g., Eleland?), and get their perspective. Sound ok? I think you can either trust me on this or, as I suggest, check it out with somebody like Eleland. HG | Talk 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pr

Try this:- 'For many years, well into the postwar period, the cause of the explosion remained a mystery. With good reason, nobody suspected the British of having blown up the ship themselves. The catastrophe had generated much publicity, all of it adverse to the British. There were two theories. One was that the refugees, in the Masada tradition, had decided to die in sight of their own land rather than to be departed from it. The other, closer to the truth, held that our/Irgun, to incapitate the ship and thereby thwart the deportation, had planted a bomb on the Patria but had underestimated its strength. Actually, it was not the Irgun, the much more militant underground group, which had placed a bomb on board. It was the Haganah, the military arm of the Zionist establishment, that had done it. They expected that the Patria would not sink but would merely be damaged as a result of the explosion and would be unable to sail.' William R.Perl, The Four-Front War, Crown Publishers, New York 1979 pp.250-251 (I think the italicized phrase more suitable, and remember these are tragic events, to be handled with tact (even though comparable Palestinian things rarely are). Regards Nishidani 19:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It was in short, a salvage operation that went badly wrong, and not a 'bombing of the Ship by the Haganah tout court.They had not estimated the effect of the weak bolts in a rusting ship in their engineering calculations, which meant the damage was vastly more severe than calculated Nishidani 19:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

PR. I dropped that in a rush note since I was just about to sit down to dinner with visitors, and didn't even check the context. I've snatched a moment, as coffee is prepared, to check. No, Tewfik is dead right (I'm sorry but I can't help calling things as I see them independent of their consequences, for friends or elsewise). That Haganah bomb cannot be classified as a case of Zionist violence. It was a failed strategem to save otherwise illegal immigrants from being sent off from the coast, and had no violent intentions, at least to judge from the acounts I am familiar with. It was, as often 'tragic', having unintended consequences. There's a lot of material you could well use for a page like that, but certainly not by citing the Patria case, I think. Regards Nishidani 21:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked 31 hours as reinforcement for your mentor's less to not keep bringing up history of inter-user interactions. Here is the diff that caused your mentor to trigger a block. GRBerry 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that Zscout has resigned as your mentor (and as a mentor for everyone else he was mentoring, the resignation really doesn't have anything to do with you), there is no point in continuing the block. It no longer is preventative, merely punitive, and accordingly you are unblocked. I should encourage you to be more optimistic and think that you and J can settle your dispute and edit in good faith - unfortunately, I am already on record as saying that I don't think you can. I do think you personally are better off letting others address J's behavior than doing it yourself.

Should you acquire another mentor, you are aware that the community will take it seriously and try to make it work. GRBerry 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein mediation

Hi PR, thx for your support!

I'll do the talk, but if you have any suggestions, please put them on my talk page. Hopefully I can have a meaningful discussion with GHcool! --JaapBoBo 18:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I read Uris about 15 years ago. First I believed it, but there was something nagging: it's simply not logical. So I decided to read more about it. The more one reads about it, the more clear the dark side of Zionism becomes. And more than half of the books are written by Jews: Morris, Finkelstein, Pappé, Hannah Arendt, Sternhell etc... I think many non-Jews are afraid to write about it out of fear of being labelled an anti-semite. --JaapBoBo 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, more and more Jews are aware of the dark side of Zionism. I wish the same thing could be said of the Americans. --JaapBoBo 00:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

reply

gave you a reply here - [48]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I be your new mentor?

I'll just go ahead and throw my hat in the ring here. I don't know what the qualifications are, but I've always taken a shine to you. I don't quite understand your last block, for example. Letting off a little steam against a WP:TE doesn't seem particularly bad to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

mentor needs to be an admin for starters and to show he fully understands the reasons for the forced mentorship second. this editor is neither an admin nor showed understanding of the issues - to the contrary even. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is it written that his mentor must be an admin? -- Kendrick7^talk 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere. A mentor must be an established user in good standing with good working knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, customs, and tribal idiosyncracies. They need to be respected enough that, if they recommend an administrative action (usually a block) regarding the mentoree their recommendation will probably be carried out. (Zscout was not an admin at the time he recommend PR be blocked; this was due to some <self-censored> on Jimbo's part.) The most important qualification for a successful mentor is that they be respected by the mentoree. The second most important is that they be able to effectively communicate with the mentoree - so being in close to the same time zone is very helpful, being in the antipodes is almost a disqualification. It is also an advantage when the mentor has experience working in the same topical areas (broadly defined) and with the same sources as the mentoree. GRBerry 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm usually around between 16:00 UTC and 06:00 UTC. I'm not sure how that lines up with PR's hours, but I imagine otherwise I'd be a decent fit. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)